﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-11-15</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 15 November 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1376" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise this morning in support of the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023, which addresses a key aspect of our ever-evolving financial landscape. My colleague Senator Bragg's private senator's bill is a testament to the coalition's commitment to protecting consumers and instilling confidence in investors. It acts where the Albanese Labor government has hesitated and failed. At its core, this bill regulates the gatekeepers of the digital asset industry. It introduces a comprehensive licensing structure accompanied by authorisations that will in turn impose a set of obligations on licensees. These obligations, to be developed in consultation with industry stakeholders and the broader community, are essential components of the robust regulatory framework Australia needs. Included in these obligations are minimal capital requirements designed to create a financial buffer in scenarios of economic downturn. This proposed legislation also emphasises the segregation of customer funds, ensuring that these funds remain distinct from corporate funds even in the unfortunate event of a digital currency exchange or custody service declaring bankruptcy.</para>
<para>Most notably, Senator Bragg's bill introduces governance standards that elevate the digital asset industry to the level expected of other financial services and products. Disclosure requirements, both to participants and government agencies, serve as a transparency mechanism, building and maintaining trust and accountability. Stringent record-keeping and reporting requirements will provide a comprehensive overview of operations.</para>
<para>It's important to stress that this bill is not just a theoretical exercise; rather, it represents a response to real-world challenges and events. Recent failures in prominent digital asset exchanges such as FTX, MyCryptoWallet and Blockchain Global Limited highlight the urgent need for consumer protections. This proposed legislation would have safeguarded consumers during these crises.</para>
<para>To ensure effective operation, the bill empowers ASIC to monitor and enforce licensee requirements. Civil and criminal penalties are integrated into the legislative framework, serving as a deterrent against potential misconduct. The bill brings clarity to the sometimes murky waters of digital assets by providing clear definitions of digital assets, digital asset exchanges and stable coins. This regulatory certainty is essential to fostering a conducive environment for innovation while ensuring the protection of investors.</para>
<para>The economics committee's examination of the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023 shed light on the pressing need for a comprehensive regulatory framework in the digital asset space. Stakeholders, including Blockchain Australia, Ripple and Kraken, have acknowledged the bill as a foundational step towards regulatory certainty and affirmed its significance in shaping Australia's transition to a digital economy. Support for the bill stems from the understanding that it effectively addresses critical policy issues with the flexibility and practicality required by a rapidly evolving sector. Importantly, recommendations from stakeholders and the committee demonstrate a collaborative effort to enhance and refine the bill now before the Senate. Suggested amendments to exclude NFTs from the definition of 'regulated digital assets' reflect a commitment to a regulatory framework that aligns with technological advancements, while the call to extend the transition period from three months to nine months would provide businesses and regulators the necessary time to adapt and comply with the new regulatory regime.</para>
<para>The time has well and truly come for this bill. The Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill lays the groundwork for a secure, transparent and thriving digital asset industry in our country. It's a meaningful step towards fully embracing the opportunities presented by emerging technologies while providing the necessary consumer safeguards. I commend Senator Bragg for his efforts, and I commend the bill to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government does not support the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023. The Albanese government is working to regulate digital and crypto asset platforms in Australia. These platforms hold billions of dollars of assets for Australians while providing services such as trading and staking. While innovation in this sector is critical to enabling growth and competition in Australia's financial sector, failures and vulnerabilities of these platforms have increased the need to regulate to protect consumers. The coalition failed to regulate crypto comprehensively while they were in government. The private member's bill put forward by Senator Bragg is not up to scratch, according to industry feedback to the Senate inquiry. There is undoubtedly, though, a need for change.</para>
<para>Interest in digital and crypto assets has grown rapidly. Around one to four per cent of Australians own some form of crypto. I might point out I'm not one of them. I've never engaged in that practice in any way whatsoever, but many do.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why are you so defensive?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm an old-fashioned banking guy, I'm afraid. The most common way for Australians to access these tokens is through digital asset platforms. These platforms hold billions of dollars of assets for Australians, exposing them to significant risk. Collapses of digital asset platforms both locally and globally have seen Australians lose their assets or be forced to wait their turn amongst long lines of creditors. The Albanese government's reforms seek to reduce the risk of these collapses happening by lifting the standard of their operations and increasing their oversight. Further regulation will achieve three goals: firstly, introducing a framework for industry innovation and growth; secondly, providing certainty and clarity for industry; and, thirdly, protecting consumers and their assets. Consultation is currently being undertaken, and the feedback from industry so far has been positive.</para>
<para>This is in stark contrast to the feedback on Senator Bragg's bill. As the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry report shows, Senator Bragg's bill 'is at odds with the measured and industry accepted approach the government is undertaking to ensure that current and new regulations are well considered and effective in supporting consumers and the digital assets industry'. The bill 'lacks the detail and certainty that investors, consumers, and the industry' require. The bill 'fails to interoperate with the established regulatory landscape', creating a regulatory arbitrage concern and resultant adverse outcomes for consumers. The bill would add unnecessary complexity between its proposed licensing regime and existing Australian financial services licensing requirements. The bill would create undue regulatory burden by establishing multiple licence categories, and it leaves significant details to delegated legislation which has not been presented with the bill for consideration.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's regulation proposal will seek to leverage existing Australian financial services laws. It would require digital asset platforms that hold over a certain threshold of Australians' assets, being $1,500 for an individual or $5 million in aggregate, to obtain an Australian financial services licence. The Australian financial services laws are a time tested and well-understood framework to mitigate risks involving businesses holding or utilising clients' assets. Digital asset platforms would need to meet all general licence obligations, consistent with other licence holders.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's focus in this space is born out of our commitment to better regulate for consumers. Australia's regulators are strengthening their focus on crypto-asset providers to make sure they meet their obligations to Australian consumers. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has increased the size of its crypto team and is strengthening enforcement measures. The regulator is taking legal action where it identifies crypto offerings being marketed without the appropriate credit or financial services licence. ASIC is also ensuring that risks to consumers are appropriately disclosed. Digital currency exchanges are regulated by AUSTRAC under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act for the purposes of preventing and detecting money-laundering and terrorism financing. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is also stepping up efforts to prevent scams, including those involving crypto-assets.</para>
<para>As I say, we're also focused on reducing scams. In 2022, Australians lost an estimated $3.1 billion to scams, an increase of nearly 80 per cent compared to 2021. I want to commend the Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, who I know has put a lot of work into the issue of scams, which is confronting so many Australians. Of that total, the ACCC's Scamwatch noted that more scammers are seeking payment via crypto, with reported losses via this payment method totalling $221 million in 2022. That's a 162 per cent increase from a year earlier.</para>
<para>The government has committed to taking action to combat scams and online fraud. To support this commitment, the government is providing $86.5 million in funding for a range of measures, including to establish the National Anti-Scam Centre in the ACCC as a world-leading partnership between government agencies and industry, facilitating real-time data sharing and coordinating the prevention and disruption of scams. The centre will also raise consumer awareness about the risks of scams. The National Anti-Scam Centre commenced operations on 1 July this year. In addition, we're boosting work by ASIC to identify and take down investment scam websites. Investment scams related to crypto are a significant component of the total number of scam websites. Finally, we're introducing new industry codes outlining the responsibilities of the private sector, including banks, telecommunications firms and digital platforms, in relation to scam activity, including crypto scams.</para>
<para>As you can see, Mr Deputy President, the Albanese government does take these issues seriously. There is a range of work underway. But, for the reasons I've outlined, we won't be supporting this bill. It comprehensively fails to deal with the real issues, including those that were ventilated at the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too won't be supporting this bill, the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023. I don't believe in digital currency—I think it's a stepping stone to the social licence—and I believe the currency should be controlled by the government of the day. I will stand here and tell you that I do not want the government in the family home, the boardroom, the doctor's waiting room or the classroom, but there is one thing I do think governments should regulate, and that is the currency.</para>
<para>Digital currencies are used to traffic drugs, to traffic children and to traffic weapons. There is no way that ASIC will ever be able to keep up with the tracking of digital currency. ASIC can't even do its job properly now. The idea that we are going to regulate digital currency is just a fantasy. We may as well have a market for unicorns and fairies if we're going to try to regulate it, because that's all a digital currency is—a world of bytes, a world of make-believe.</para>
<para>If we want to get this country back on its feet, we need to start producing real goods and services. We need to build infrastructure. We need fewer white-collar spivs in their ivory palaces in Sydney and Melbourne. We need more people back on the tools, not trading imaginary figures on a computer screen. It's very important that we understand how important controlling currency is. It's actually one of the reasons why—and I'm one of the few people in this chamber who believe this—the RBA should come under the control of the Treasurer and should not be independent from government.</para>
<para>I'll just read out the history of coins in the early colony, because controlling currency is everything. The first colony of modern Australia didn't really have its own currency for the first 17 years, and, if you want to regulate and control your country, you've got to have a currency. This describes currency in the early settlement:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The coins in the pockets of the passengers on the First Fleet were a mixture of currencies from all around the world and included English guineas, shillings and pence, Spanish dollars, Indian rupees and Dutch guilders. It was confusing to try and use these coins to trade because no one knew how much they were worth when compared to each other.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This coin confusion meant that other ways of trading were used. People bartered for goods and services with anything they had—food and rum became popular items to trade.</para></quote>
<para>We all know what happened with the Rum Rebellion. It literally went the proverbial up. Luckily enough, we had Lachlan Macquarie, who came along in 1810. He was the first governor to see Australia not as a colony but as a country. He knew that if you wanted to be a good governor for your country you needed a military to defend your borders and provide law and order, you needed a taxation system and you needed a monetary system. He introduced the holey dollar, and that holey dollar was used to fund the Sydney Hospital and the Sydney barracks, which still stand in Macquarie Street today. That is what we have to do, as good government involves regulating and controlling your currency.</para>
<para>I want to repeat: when it comes to the government going into your personal lives, I'll fight that any day. But when it comes to defending the right of the government to control your currency, we have to make sure that that is in the control of the people, because the history of monetary policy is the history of wars. If we go back to the great patriots of 1776, that was a currency war, believe it or not, because in 1764 the British imposed the Currency Act. That was where they told the American colonies they couldn't use the colonial scrip. As Benjamin Franklin said, that was the reason for the Revolutionary War. If you're not allowed to use your own scrip, your own paper—let's not forget that all currency is is an arbitrary construct, whether it's a digital form of currency or a piece of paper. All that indicates is that you should be able to swap that for something that is tangible.</para>
<para>We've got to get back to basics here. If you're printing this stuff out of thin air, you've got to have very tight regulations around it. The British imposed a Currency Act on the American colonies. If you can't print your own currency, you've got to borrow a currency. If you've got to borrow a currency, that means you've got to pay interest on that currency. Of course, that meant the wealth was going out of the colonies and it was going back to Britain. We saw the same thing happen 200 years later in 1973 with the creation of the petrodollar. I'll call it the petrodollar. Most people think the US dollar is owned by the great people of the United States, but that's not true. The Federal Reserve is privately owned, and when any country uses US dollars they are effectively paying interest to the private banks that own the Federal Reserve. Yet again, I have a problem with that, and I'll say to my good friends in the United States: take back control of your printing press, because you didn't realise this in 1913, but those private bankers won the day. So it's very important that we get this right.</para>
<para>I want to stress it, and I'm going to go through the history now, because it's very important. We'll go from the Currency Act and jump a hundred years. The whole history of the United States through the 19th century was all about who was going to control the currency—the private sector and the private banks or the government of the day. In 1896, a bloke by the name of William Jennings Bryan gave a speech known as the 'cross of gold' speech about silver and gold. Interestingly, he went up against William McKinley. He lost that election, but he ended up staying in the US Congress and became Secretary of State under Wilson in 1912. Interestingly enough, he became immortalised in a book known as <inline font-style="italic">The Wonderful Wizard of Oz</inline>: he was actually the lion. 'William Jennings Bryan' rhymes with 'lion', and <inline font-style="italic">The Wonderful Wizard of Oz</inline> was a story about the history of monetary policy. Effectively, Dorothy represented the American people, the Tin Man represented the worker and Scarecrow represented the farmer. In the original story, the Yellow Brick Road represented the gold and Dorothy wore silver slippers, not ruby slippers. Emerald City was the colour of the US greenback, and the person behind the curtain, the Wizard of Oz, was the symbol for the central banker.</para>
<para>That's what we have today, these nasty central bankers that operate in the background, and we know that because in estimate I asked the current governor, the deputy at the time, Michele Bullock, for the minutes between the RBA and the Bank for International Settlements. If you've never heard about the Bank for International Settlements, they are the central banker for central banks. Michele Bullock wouldn't give me those minutes. I think it's a disgrace to refuse that to a senator, a person elected by the people to represent the people. It's disgraceful that a public and unaccountable independent governor will not give the minutes of those meetings to a senator who wants to share the minutes with the Australian people.</para>
<para>That's not the only sneaky business the RBA is up to. As I've said before, I've got the serial numbers and the dates of minting of our gold bars that are held in London, and all those gold bars have been refined since 2014, some as late as 2020. The reason why the central banks don't want you to get hold of the gold is that that is a tangible store of wealth. If people ever found out that the real medium of exchange is gold or land, which are hard assets, the stuff that matters because paper deflates away—it's currently deflating away at seven per cent a year—you would find the people would be up in arms. Trust me, if you look at the <inline font-style="italic">Commitments </inline><inline font-style="italic">of </inline><inline font-style="italic">Traders</inline> report—I look at it every Saturday morning to see what's going on with gold—you will notice that that is also manipulated. Interestingly, as we went through September, the number of shorts held by the banks was decreasing. It decreased right down to the first week of October, and since then it has rapidly increased. I'll let you guys join the dots on that one.</para>
<para>We'll jump forward to 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created. It was set up as an independent privately owned bank. Needless to say what happened after that was that World War I broke out the year after that, and Germany went on to lose that war. They had their bank nationalised after World War I, and the German people were forced to repay the debts from World War I. That led to World War II, and interestingly enough after World War II the Bank of England, which was privately owned, was also nationalised. I say this to my good British friends: 'You do realise that you lost World War II. You got shafted because your Bank of England, which should not have been privately owned but was, was nationalised and then the debts from World War II were stuck onto you British people.' It took them 60 years to repay the debts to the Federal Reserve. That is how the wealth from the Old World went to the New World.</para>
<para>We jump forward, and in 1953 a great US president—probably my favourite, along with Kennedy—gave a speech called the 'Chance for Peace'. In the last paragraph he said, 'We will not be hung on a cross of iron.' That was his reference to say that all wars are bankers wars. We know his speech in 1961 where he called out the military industrial complex and the scientific and technical elite. He was onto this way back in '53, and he knew what he was talking about. This bloke commanded D-Day, was head of NATO, was president for eight years and headed Columbia University. If he says there's a military industrial complex, trust me there is a military industrial complex. It's interesting that in '53 he mentioned that same thing. My point is that the control of the printing press has been fought for for years and years and years, and we cannot let that go into the hands of unnamed operatives who will actually use that.</para>
<para>We have issues with ASIC and other watchdogs all the time. This will end up in tears. I read this morning that there are allegations that the current tragedy happening in the Middle East has been funded by cryptocurrency in terms of buying weapons. We cannot allow this stuff to go underground. It's incredibly dangerous, and it takes our eye off the ball. True wealth is the stuff we see in front of us. It's the production and capacity to produce goods and services. If we go back to 1971, they dropped the gold standard in the end. They had to drop the gold standard because of the Vietnam War, when they were printing too much money and couldn't keep up with gold. Needless to say inflation took off because they were printing money, which does increase demand, but they weren't using it to increase supply. This is just like during COVID when we printed $300 billion and paid people to stay at home. Had we printed $300 billion and used it to build infrastructure, which increases the supply of goods and services, we would not have had this inflation problem and we would have been able to keep people in their jobs and controlled inflation. It's interesting. The petrodollar was set up in 1973, and of course the bankers who run the Federal Reserve couldn't have all the money going to the people selling the oil in the Middle East, so they had to come up with a way to clip the ticket and get the money transferred back to the US. They came up with the petrodollar, which basically is the biggest physical commodity in the world. Of course, the biggest paper commodity in the world is the US treasury bond market.</para>
<para>We've been brainwashed. I myself was brainwashed. I knew it was never right, and I've spent my whole life trying to get to the bottom of it. We're not allowed to print money, and I always found that a very difficult thing to understand, because all money is printed. All money is an arbitrary construct; all money comes out of thin air. The question is: if you are going to print money out of thin air, how do you do it in a responsible manner? The responsible manner, of course, is to match it against an asset that comes out of thin air. The assets that come out of thin air are the rain, the sunlight and the soil. As we know from the words of our national anthem, wealth comes from toil. If we go and farm the land, dam the water and build the power stations to dig up the coal, uranium, gas or whatever, we create wealth from nothing. That is what we must do.</para>
<para>This is the problem with cryptocurrency and digital assets, apart from the social credit that will come along with it later on. There is no security against the hard assets. That is what we must do as a government, and it's what the RBA must do. They must look at quantitative easing—and that was a recommendation in the 1937 banking royal commission—as a way to stimulate growth in this economy. If we're going to increase demand by jumping from 20 million people to 26 million people, with another half a million people having come in the last 12 months, we've got to increase supply. The only way we can do that is by tying our currency to hard assets. That is why we need an infrastructure bank in this country that is only for those seven sovereign assets: dams, power stations, road, rail, ports, airports and telecommunications.</para>
<para>I read in the paper just yesterday that the states are saying they don't have any money to build infrastructure. You don't need money. If you're a sovereign country and you have title over all this wealth, you can issue equity. We've been brainwashed into thinking that governments can only raise capital by issuing bonds. What's the biggest market in the world? It's the US treasury bond market. Where does the US treasury bond market come from? It comes from the Federal Reserve. And who owns the Federal Reserve? It's the private banks. So, every time we build a dam in this country—for, say, a billion dollars—and go out and borrow a billion dollars in petrodollars from private banks offshore, the first billion dollars we create in wealth we've got to repay offshore. Then they charge us another, say, four per cent interest for another 25 or 50 years. That's another $1 billion to $2 billion going offshore.</para>
<para>We have to start getting back to producing real goods and services in this country. We've got to get those white-collar traders out of those ivory palaces in the big cities and get them back out there building infrastructure. If we go ahead and somehow try to legitimise this digital currency which we will never be able to regulate or keep up with, we are going to a fool's paradise. We're going the wrong way. I will be voting against this bill, because we need to get back on the tools, and we need to build this country in the same way our forefathers did.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always good to follow my good friend and colleague Senator Rennick. He gave us a potted history of monetary policy just then, and you always learn something new whenever you hear from Senator Rennick. I appreciate his thoughtful contribution there. He is someone that should be taken seriously, because he's put a lot into understanding this area and presenting a pathway forward. On the topic of giving out bouquets, can I thank Senator Bragg for bringing this bill before the Senate right now. The Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023 is an important piece of legislation that I hope will receive support in this place when it eventually comes to a vote.</para>
<para>I know that Senator Bragg is particularly passionate about this emerging digital market. I think it was one of the first things he did when he came into this place, along with Senator Scarr and I, back in 2019. Senator Bragg established an inquiry into this whole emerging field. That was four years ago, though, and we're now a long way down the track from that. It was a burgeoning technology four or five years ago. It's now certainly becoming very much established. So regulation in this area is well and truly overdue, so Senator Bragg bringing forward this thoughtful bit of legislation is very important. There is need for effective regulation in this area.</para>
<para>This is the first serious attempt by this parliament to look at regulating cryptocurrency and, more broadly, digital assets. While I very much appreciate Senator Bragg bringing it forward and it's absolutely his prerogative to do that and, as I said, I commend him for it, I would really love to see the government come forward with some leadership in this space, because it is critical that there be regulation provided in this area. But it seems that the government have put this issue in the too-hard basket or the go-slow lane. This makes sense, because it seems that issues of the economy are not something that the government is really willing to properly tackle. We know that those opposite seem to freak out every time the word 'economy' comes up. What they're not doing is managing it in a way that actually addresses the needs within the economy, be it the need to address cost of living or this area of important regulation.</para>
<para>Cryptocurrency is an emerging market, and it won't be going away any time soon. People have made serious money in crypto. There are some who have lost a lot of money too. It's not something that I've ever personally invested in, but I know people who have, and they've done very well out of their investment in crypto. But there is very limited regulation in this space, and it is necessary that we do it. As I said, it's not an issue that's going to go away just because we ignore it, and there needs to be proper regulation.</para>
<para>The primary objective of this bill is to oversee key players in the digital assets market, namely exchange operators and asset holders, by establishing regulatory measures and industry standards. This is achieved through the introduction of a unified licensing framework that encompasses various authorisations. The bill proposes that licence holders will be obligated to adhere to a set of requirements that would be collaboratively developed with input from both the industry and the community. This is important. It is important that we get both ends coming together. This includes minimum capital requirements to act as a safeguard in economic downturns; segregation of customer funds to prevent entanglement with corporate funds in the event of insolvency; governance standards aimed at aligning the industry with established financial services and products; disclosure of requirements for participants and government entities; and, finally, record-keeping and reporting obligations. Licence holders will be obligated to adhere to these requirements, and this is important, because without proper regulation, some would argue, it is like a free-for-all in this space, and there are no safeguards or guardrails to provide protection. So it's very important.</para>
<para>Concerning stablecoins, the bill sets forth minimum reserve standards to ensure that issuers maintain reserves equivalent to the full value of their liabilities. These reserves must be held in accounts with authorised deposit-taking institutions in Australia, providing consumers with a baseline of protection. In the case of the central bank digital currencies, CBDCs, the bill mandates that banks and financial institutions disclose information to ASIC and the Reserve Bank regarding the utilisation and management of foreign CBDCs in Australia, aligning with the approach taken in the United States but on an expanded scale.</para>
<para>The bill introduces crucial consumer protections, offering oversight through ASIC to monitor and enforce licensee requirements. It establishes civil and criminal penalties to deter misconduct, and it empowers the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services with inquiry and reporting functions to ensure effective implementation. I want to underscore the importance of that in ensuring that there is oversight. Allowing that important joint committee across this place to have some inquiry and reporting functions would be very welcome, and it would provide the oversight that is necessary. We know that, when you cast light on issues, the sanitation from that sunlight can ensure that there are protections in place and that there's nothing untoward happening. So I think that's a particularly commendable element of this bill and one of the reasons why it should be supported.</para>
<para>A key outcome of the bill is the provision of regulatory clarity and certainty for investors, achieved through clear definitions of terms such as digital asset, digital asset exchanges and stablecoins. The licensing regime created by the bill operates independently of the Corporations Act. It's tailored to suit the unique characteristics of the digital asset industry.</para>
<para>The previous Liberal government aimed to establish a comprehensive legislative framework for digital assets in Australia by the close of 2022. As we know, we didn't win the last election, so we weren't able to follow through on that. But evidence presented to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee indicated that this proactive approach was attracting onshore investment and sending positive signals to the market. Even just indicating that that was the direction that the government was going to go elicited that sort of support—that is, Government, if you get on board and start doing this, we will start to see some movement in this space. It just happens naturally; markets follow these things.</para>
<para>We queried the potential impact of the current government's slow approach on future business decisions. Market participants informed the committee that they would seek licences from overseas sources. Witnesses emphasised to the committee that the loss of domestic investment could transform Australia into a technology importer rather than an exporter, compromising potential job creation and revenue generation within the country, as stated by Mr Michael Bacina of Piper Alderman, which is in the committee <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>While the government's lack of proactive engagement on these issues persists, Australia, sadly, is significantly lagging behind competitors. Who are those competitors? There are competitive nations like the EU nations, the UK, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan. Recent reports in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline> highlighted Australia's regulatory position as even falling behind that of Nigeria—Nigeria—in the crypto space. Come on, Australia; we've got to step up here. We can't allow our standing to fall. Sadly, we're seeing our standing fall across a number of measures compared with other nations. This is certainly one that we actually have an opportunity to take a leadership role in, and with that comes enormous economic opportunity for Australia.</para>
<para>Information obtained through questions on notice revealed that the Treasury Crypto Policy Unit is utilising public generative AI web-based applications like ChatGPT in its policy work. Additionally, members of the Crypto Policy Unit reported receiving unsolicited transfers of crypto tokens via AirDrop to all public addresses with transaction histories. In response to another question on notice, the Treasury was unable to specify the number of briefings provided to the Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer on crypto policy.</para>
<para>When questions are asked of departments and officials, we expect an answer and we expect that that answer will enlighten the committee on the moves of government. In this case, the Treasury's answer was that they were unable to specify the number of briefings provided to the Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer. This is an important matter of policy and regulation. It was surprising to the committee to not get a number, because you would think, in this important area of policy, that there would have been at least one meeting. I would have expected several on this important topic. Sadly, they're unable to specify the number. So we don't know. Maybe they did have lots of meetings, but we don't know. And, back to my point earlier, I think there should be oversight of this area; the joint committee should have oversight of the reporting and inquiry functions. That's important, and it would no doubt cause Treasury and the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer to have a greater focus on this.</para>
<para>The Labor Party's handling of digital asset regulation is cited as another instance of the government's misguided economic policy approach. The perception is that the government is only interested in policies that align with the interests of super funds or unions, and that's why we're seeing the industrial relations laws come through this place. Those opposite will no doubt argue against the point that I'm making here, but the fact of the matter is, when you look at the industrial relations bills currently before this parliament, the commencement dates for all of those measures are somewhere off into the future—some as early as six months time in June; some are even into 2025—but there is an exception to that, and that is the powers of trade unions in the workplace. Those regulations are right there to commence on 1 January, in just over a month's time. That bells the cat when it comes to what this is actually really about.</para>
<para>It does seem that the government is led by the nose by the trade unions and the super funds. When it comes to their lack of interest in this area, it's clearly because no-one in that space is calling for reform. So I'd encourage the government to listen to the evidence that has been brought forward through the inquiries ably led by Senator Bragg and the others that were involved over the last four or five years. Have a look at the evidence, listen to the evidence and respond in an appropriate way. The government really needs to get focused on policies that align with the interests of the broader economic considerations of the Australian economy, and this is an example of that.</para>
<para>I do commend this bill to the Senate. I hope that it can receive support when it eventually comes to a vote, and I do just want to conclude by again thanking Senator Bragg for bringing it to us. It's a very considered bill. It's comprehensive. It really covers a broad range of issues, and I think it will provide a terrific framework for crypto to be managed within this country and to ensure there are protections in place for people participating in it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wanted to speak following Senator O'Sullivan and associate myself with his remarks, which were well made and balanced. I also want to commend Senator Bragg for bringing forward this important piece of legislation, the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023. It is urgently required.</para>
<para>It is the role of the parliament to legislate where required, and what we've seen is an industry that is moving faster than government. We've seen an industry that is engaged in currency transfers. Digital assets across the board are moving faster than our regulators. It is unfortunate that the government has taken the road of inaction, as is their usual form—very slow reviews and inaction on something that is moving quickly. It is imperative that the Australian government move to regulate digital assets, because, in the absence of that, Australians are left unprotected. And this is happening right now.</para>
<para>We know that cryptocurrency is being used on the dark web. We know that it is being used by drug traffickers and we know that it is being used in all sorts of nefarious activities—as well as appropriate ones; I'm not suggesting that that is its only purpose. But the absence of appropriate regulation leaves Australians unprotected and it leaves criminal elements able to act with impunity. If Minister Jones is unwilling to act, then it is the responsibility of people like Senator Bragg, who is well informed and up to date on matters such as this, to bring forward private senators' bills, and I really do commend him for that.</para>
<para>We have seen that it is possible for the government to move quickly when necessary. We saw recently the bipartisan approach to national security around the placement of an embassy. We have seen other occasions when the government has been forced to take urgent action to protect Australia's interests and there has been bipartisan support, both during the term of this government and previously. This is another element where it is the responsibility of government to provide some leadership, to move quickly to protect Australians and Australian businesses. As I say, Senator Bragg, who has deep knowledge in these areas, has taken that leadership role.</para>
<para>There has been discussion already about the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023, which creates a licensing regime for digital assets, with custody, disclosure and minimum capital requirements that will give consumers protection and the market certainty. This bill proves that an Australian crypto bill is entirely viable. It builds on the work of the previous government and picks up the work of comparable jurisdictions. It would provide a legislative framework to regulate digital assets. This is absolutely achievable. The inaction by the government has forced the regulator, ASIC, to utilise the powers that it does hold to the extent that they apply to digital asset-type products, but the regulator cannot make the law, and so we have left the regulator hamstrung in this regard in managing cryptocurrencies and digital assets. ASIC has no power to protect consumers without appropriate regulation.</para>
<para>It's no secret that the government has been flat-footed on regulatory reform in areas of society and the economy that are moving more quickly than the government is able to keep up with. It was a shocking situation last October when there was an inability for NOPSEMA to have appropriate regulation to make decisions on important economic investments in this country. The government has remained flat-footed and done nothing to provide greater certainty and transparency around that kind of regulation. So it is no surprise that here in the crypto world the government has remained flat-footed, confused. I'm not sure exactly what it is that they think their reluctance to move will achieve, apart from putting Australians—Australian consumers and Australian businesses—into a more exposed position. But they are also not supporting our legal enforcers. Where are the regulations and the legislation that would provide those agencies with the tools to be fighting these criminal underworld gangs? Regulations and legislation would help ASIC, in the economic sense, and even some of our other enforcers—the Australian Federal Police and others. This absence of regulation leaves our enforcers without the tools to defend Australians against the sort of activity that is going on.</para>
<para>Under this proposed legislation the licence holders will be subject to various obligations, and it would be developed in consultation with industry and community. These obligations would include: minimal capital requirements to provide a buffer in downturn scenarios; segregation of consumer funds to ensure that those funds are not tied up with corporate funds in the event that a digital currency exchange or custody service declares bankruptcy; governance standards to bring the industry up to par with other financial services and products; disclosure requirements to both participants and government agencies; and of course record keeping and recording requirements. The bill would require minimum reserve standards to ensure that stablecoin issuers hold in reserve the full amount of their face-value liabilities on issue in accounts kept with an authorised deposit-taking institution in Australia. This would provide consumers with the minimum standard of consumer protection.</para>
<para>We are very proud of the stable banking system we have in Australia. It allowed us to work through several downturns, including the most recent supply shocks that we had during the COVID pandemic, and previously. It is shocking that we have a new currency system, a new area that consumers are exposed to, that remains unregulated. Consumers remain unprotected. And yes, I've already said that, and I will continue to say that, because it is shocking that the government remains flat-footed on what is a very basic protection element. We had a good fintech inquiry during the last government, very ably chaired by Senator Bragg, and the deputy chair was Senator Marielle Smith.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And I served on it, Senator McDonald.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. Senator Scarr was also a terrific contributor to that very technical Senate inquiry, which was looking at new technologies and new ways of banking and moving currency and finance around the world. And Australia is missing out. Australia has been beaten in this regard by many other jurisdictions, including Nigeria, which is not usually expected to be a financial powerhouse in something like digital currencies and cryptocurrencies. But they are outstripping Australia and taking action on managing this very issue.</para>
<para>This bill would require banks and financial institutions to make disclosures to ASIC and the Reserve Bank regarding to the use and management of foreign CBDCs in Australia. This is very important. This approach follows the one taken in the US but in a more expanded capacity. The protections would have safeguarded consumers during recent notable exchange failures, including FTX, ACX.io, MyCryptoWallet and Blockchain Global Ltd. This bill would have provided critical consumer protection. That's exactly what this bill aims to do. And it would empower ASIC, as I've already mentioned, to monitor and enforce licence requirements. It would empower the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services with inquiry and reporting functions to ensure the appropriate implementation of the bill.</para>
<para>This is urgent. This action is urgent. In the absence of any sort of movement, apart from another review, then who are consumers expecting will protect them? There will be other failures. We know that. This is the world we live in. Yet Labor remains flat-footed on protecting anybody apart from their union mates and big super.</para>
<para>The bill has been described by Blockchain Australia as a 'foundational start towards a comprehensive digital asset regulatory framework'. There was vast agreement by stakeholders who gave evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry that the bill's approach is correct. So we have broadscale support for an important piece of legislation to address an issue that is looming large for consumers and for industry. But the government thinks that it's not important. They obviously didn't listen to the evidence that was provided to the economics committee, because there was broad agreement with the stated outcome of the licensing regime and many of the licensee obligations.</para>
<para>This lack of modern regulatory support we are seeing right across industry, we are seeing in the resources sector. We are seeing inappropriate environmental regulations. We are seeing inappropriate regulation for important CCUS projects. We see the government fund the Environmental Defenders Office to undermine their very own decisions. But they will not take action on providing greater certainty and transparency for industry. I see it in the resources sector, I see in the agricultural sector and now, of course, here we are seeing it in the banking sector in the absence of protection and appropriate regulation and legislation for this new world.</para>
<para>We are seeing a government that is much more focused on looking backwards. I think pretty well all of their talking points are focused on what the coalition did. They very rarely talk about what their vision is, what their future for Australia is. It doesn't exist in their minds. They're so busy looking backwards and taking orders from the unions and the super funds that they are missing opportunities to ensure that Australia remains a country with a First World standard of living. They are missing opportunities to ensure that we are receiving investment and good, well-paid and, in this regard, smart jobs, because this investment is going elsewhere. It's going to other countries that have appropriate frameworks for it, and instead Australia is left with just the criminal element of cryptocurrencies. Australia is left with the dark web drug runners, paedophilia rings an others who want to escape the attention of regulators, because they are unregulated.</para>
<para>The entire point of this bill is that digital assets are no longer a niche product. They're no longer something so rare and unusual. This industry has potential to disrupt traditional financial services and provide Australian customers and consumers with better, lower prices. It could establish a suitable framework to regulate digital assets and it's critical to embracing the digital economy. As one witness said, 'If Australia fails to adapt to and enable digital business models, these platforms will still be built, but they will simply be built in other jurisdictions or remain in dark parts of the economy, leaving consumers and investors exposed.' What a terrific summary of the threats and risks that Australia is exposed to if this legislation is not passed.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak on the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023. First of all, let me commend Senator Bragg for this bill. He's put a lot of thought, consideration and expertise into this bill and he has certainly filled the yawning gap that this Labor government has left. This bill itself creates a licensing regime for digital assets, with custody, disclosure and minimum capital requirements that will give consumers protection and the market the certainty that it needs—and it is certainly a market that is crying out for certainty.</para>
<para>Like so many other examples from this government, I've got no idea what they spent nine years in opposition doing, because, unless it was actually delivered with a nice red bow from the trade union movement or some of the industry super funds, they have been completely unable to govern across so many ministries. They have just not done the work and certainly do not understand the portfolios that they are now responsible for administering. There is no better example of this than a senator who does have the expertise and the mastery actually filling in the gaps where this government has failed. Unfortunately, because it wasn't their idea and their own minister, Minister Jones, was completely incapable of putting this bill together in the first 18 months of their government, halfway through their term they have still left this yawning gap, like so many other things.</para>
<para>They've come into government, and across so many portfolios there is review after review after review, which means inaction, inaction, inaction. Government means you have to make decisions. You have to understand what you're doing, and you have to make decisions, because, if you don't, you go backwards.</para>
<para>That is exactly the case now in this portfolio and in this industry. It was only two years ago that an EY report clearly demonstrated that Australia was on track for a crypto boom by 2030 and that the country's crypto industry could swell by up to 30 times its current size. That has come to shuddering halt and is now going backwards because this government is incapable of working out how to regulate this industry so that it can grow and so that we can attract investment in this sector here in Australia.</para>
<para>What are we talking about in this sector? Digital assets are a booming new asset class with thousands of unique economic opportunities that has the possibility to drive growth and create long-term jobs, particularly for the next generation of tech workers. Australia needs a robust system, but to achieve that—it is not rocket science; well, apparently it is to those opposite—Australia needs a robust regulatory framework to foster investment and ensure that customers are protected from fraudulent activity. Like any other sector where there's money involved, there will be fraud if it is not well regulated and people are not protected.</para>
<para>Now, halfway through their term, instead of working with the regulatory industry and regulating the industry to provide these opportunities for the burgeoning Australian financial sector, the Labor government are dragging their feet, putting the industry in limbo, when they should be nimble and able. They should have actually come in with a plan to do this. In fact, had they just implemented what we had on track in 2022, this would have been passed over 12 months ago, and we would now have a very different sector with far more opportunities. But they have just dragged their feet. Instead of innovation companies looking to Australia, they are now going elsewhere, where governments are promoting innovative products and are also providing the protections for those who are operating in this market.</para>
<para>Worse, after just 18 months of this government, productivity is declining. Real wages are declining, and the government is not doing anything that could stimulate the economy and provide well-paying jobs, especially for younger Australians in these emerging markets. Their pride and their incompetence mean that we are losing opportunities in this sector day by day—to grow this sector, to regulate the sector and to provide new career opportunities to tens of thousands of younger Australians.</para>
<para>What Labor have shown themselves to be incredibly good at is not making decisions, not leading and not governing, but they are good at conducting endless reviews and having catchy terms in media releases. The substance of producing legislation that will improve the lives of Australians is absent. After 18 months of this incompetent minister, they were not able to produce something as fundamentally important as this. He had it all there. I don't know what he was doing—sitting there looking at it? Did he throw it in the bin? But now we the parliament are doing the job of the government by bringing forward this comprehensive and outstanding piece of legislation from Senator Bragg.</para>
<para>Australia, when supported—and sometimes despite not being supported by those opposite—has been at the forefront of technological innovation. Not many Australians know this, but Google Maps was actually created and invented here in Australia, as well as the flight box recorder, cochlear implants and hundreds of other products. When you support innovation here in this nation, Australians thrive.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'Sullivan</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wi-fi.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And wi-fi. That's exactly right, Senator O'Sullivan. But, instead of just picking up where we left off in government or the current outstanding private member's bill, this government is giving a two-fingered salute to the tech industry here in Australia and saying: 'We are too proud. We are too stubborn.' Quite frankly, you are too incompetent to even just agree. Swallow your pride and say, 'This is a good bill, and this should be carried.' Australia needs innovation and not the stagnation that this new government—not so new anymore—is providing us, but we do need robust safeguards to ensure not only that the Australian financial services industry remains the most efficient and the safest in the world but also that it will provide opportunities for the next generation of Australians.</para>
<para>Let's have a little bit more of a look at the nature of this bill. What is in this bill to make those opposite so afraid of saying, 'Yes, this is the right thing for the Australian financial sector'? The bill itself is designed to regulate the digital asset gatekeepers, which are the exchange operators and asset holders, and also to impose industry standards. It does so by creating a single licensing structure with various authorisations. Licence holders will be subject to various obligations, to be developed in consultation with industry and the community.</para>
<para>When you listen to those, they are such commonsense regulatory requirements. They are good practice. They are world practice. But those opposite ditched the proposal that we were developing and that we actually would have implemented 12 months ago had we retained government, but we didn't. Those opposite came in with Minister Jones, and what has he done? Absolutely nothing. Now we are bringing a bill forward, courtesy of Senator Bragg and the hard work the committee has done, to fill this gap. Still, those opposite are so proud that they would rather squander the opportunities in this sector than say, 'Yes, we will support this bill so that this sector can move on.'</para>
<para>What else does this do? In relation to stablecoins, the bill provides minimum reserve standards to ensure that stablecoin issuers hold in reserve the full amount of their face-value liabilities on issue in accounts kept with an authorised deposit-taking institution here in Australia. Think about that. That is such an important protection for Australians in relation to stablecoins. It is good practice. It is world's best practice, yet those opposite do not have a plan and do not support implementing this bill to protect Australian businesses and Australian individuals.</para>
<para>In respect of central bank digital currencies, the bill will also require banks and financial institutions to make disclosures to ASIC and the Reserve Bank regarding their use and management of foreign central bank digital currencies here in Australia. This approach follows the approach taken in the US but in an expanded and a more effective way. But, again, Labor are opposing this. Labor are opposing these protections, and it is a complete and utter disgrace.</para>
<para>The bill also provides critical consumer protections that would have safeguarded consumers during recent notable exchange failures, including FTX, ACX.io, MyCryptoWallet and Blockchain Global Limited. Everybody in this chamber is aware of those. This bill is actually designed to protect Australians from such fraud and crimes. The bill empowers ASIC to monitor and enforce licensee requirements and provides the requisite civil and criminal penalties available to deter such misconduct against Australians.</para>
<para>Sadly for Australians, this is yet another failure of those opposite. They didn't pursue the work that we had started and was well advanced in 2022. When they came to government, Minister Jones chucked it in the bin. Instead of actually implementing or just rebadging it as their own, he has done nothing for 18 months—nothing! Here you have, courtesy Senator Bragg, an outstanding bill which would get this sector going. It would provide the protections Australian individuals and companies need to operate safely and profitably. It would also be the signal, if passed, for foreign capital, which is now going elsewhere to other markets in this sector, to come here to Australia and to have the confidence to invest. By not implementing legislation of their own or this private senator's bill, those opposite are knowingly and deliberately—possibly just incompetently—making Australia a sovereign risk for foreign capital. You are not making it easy or possible for Australians to engage in this new economy safely and securely—shame on you. I don't think anybody could have imagined the damage those opposite have managed to wreak in the economy. We heard yesterday that through their incompetence they have had to let over 80 people out of detention—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! It being 12 minutes past 10, the time for this debate has expired.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6979" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Dean Smith be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:16] <br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment on sheet 2116:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) concerns have been raised by small and medium-sized businesses, especially family businesses, regarding the potential impact of measures contained in this Bill on the ability of private companies to undertake capital raisings and franked dividend distributions to facilitate the departure of one or more shareholders from a company; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the measures are not intended to affect these ordinary family or commercial dealings of private companies; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) this includes dealings undertaken for the purpose of succession planning and in other scenarios where shareholders exiting a company are paid a franked dividend funded by a capital raising from those shareholders who remain as shareholders in the company".</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Original question, as amended, agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill and seek leave to move amendments (1) to (16) on sheet ZB218 together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 4, item 21, page 40 (lines 7 to 9), omit "after 7:30 pm, by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 25 October 2022", substitute "on or after 18 November 2022".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 4, item 21, page 40 (lines 14 and 15), omit "after 7:30 pm, by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 25 October 2022", substitute "on or after 18 November 2022".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 5, item 1, page 41 (line 7), after "a distribution", insert "or a part of a distribution".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 5, item 2, page 41 (line 13), after "of a kind", insert ", or a part (the <inline font-style="italic">relevant part</inline>) of a distribution (also a <inline font-style="italic">relevant distribution</inline>) of a kind,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 5, item 2, page 41 (line 27), after "funding of", insert "a substantial part of".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 5, item 2, page 41 (line 28), omit "part of the relevant distribution", substitute "the relevant part".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 5, item 2, page 41 (line 32), after "funding", insert "a substantial part of".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 5, item 2, page 41 (line 33), omit "part of the relevant distribution", substitute "the relevant part".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 5, item 2, page 41 (line 33), at the end of subsection (1), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (d) the issue of the equity interests was not a direct response in order to meet a requirement, direction or recommendation from *APRA or *ASIC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 5, item 2, page 42 (line 23), after "apply to", insert "all or any part of".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Schedule 5, item 2, page 42 (line 25), after "<inline font-style="italic">funding</inline>", insert "<inline font-style="italic">all or part of</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Schedule 5, item 2, page 42 (line 35), at the end of paragraph 207-159(4)(b), add "or the relevant part (as the case may be)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Schedule 5, item 3, page 44 (line 8), omit "15 September 2022", substitute "the commencement of this Schedule".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Schedule 5, item 3, page 44 (line 12), omit "15 September 2022", substitute "the commencement of this Schedule".</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition will not be supporting these amendments moved by the government, which have only been circulated in recent times, despite having been recommended over five months ago. These amendments should not need to be moved, because the promise should not have been broken in the first place. As coalition senators have noted, the legislation before the committee includes a very, very significant broken promise on behalf of the government. On multiple occasions before the election, the Prime Minister promised that there would be no changes to the rules around franking credits. These amendments change those rules and constitute a broken promise on behalf of the government. The opposition will not support the Prime Minister breaking an election promise that impacts retirees, mum-and-dad investors and small businesses.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that government amendments (1) to (16) on sheet ZB218, moved together by leave, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [10:28] <br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation's amendment (3) on sheet 2188:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 2, page 14 (line 1) to page 20 (line 6), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [10:32] <br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>45</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>3</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to clarify: having delivered that vote, the Senate now does not need to deal with amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2188 from Pauline Hanson's One Nation; they are redundant.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2161 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 5), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 3, page 33 (after line 25), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 4 — Appointments to the Tax Practitioners Board</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Tax Agent Services Act 2009</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16 Paragraph 30-25(4)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) Part 2 (Registration); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) Subdivision 30-C (Notifying a change of circumstances); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ac) Part 4 (Termination of registration); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ad) section 60-25 (Appointment of Tax Practitioner Board members); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 Section 60-1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Comprising at least 7 Board members, the Board has functions and powers relating to the operation of this Act, including investigating your application for registration and conduct that may breach this Act. For the purposes of an investigation, the Board may oblige you to give it information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Comprising at least 7 Board members, the Board has functions and powers relating to the operation of this Act. Board members must be individuals who are representatives of the community rather than representatives of larger registered tax agents or BAS agents.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">One of the Board's functions is to investigate your application for registration and conduct that may breach this Act. For the purposes of an investigation, the Board may oblige you to give it information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18 At the end of subsection 60-10(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Board members must be community representatives (see subsection 60-25(4)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19 At the end of section 60-25</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Community representatives</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) In appointing an individual as a *Board member, the Minister must be satisfied that the individual is a *community representative.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) An individual is a <inline font-style="italic">community representative </inline>if the individual is not any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a partner in a partnership that is a *prescribed tax agent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an *executive officer of a company that is a prescribed tax agent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a former partner in a partnership that is currently a prescribed tax agent, if the individual is receiving regular and ongoing benefits, or has within the last 6 months received a material benefit, from the partnership;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a former executive officer of a company that is currently a prescribed tax agent if either of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the individual is receiving regular and ongoing benefits, or has within the last 6 months received a material benefit, from the company;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the individual holds *shares in the company.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A <inline font-style="italic">prescribed tax agent</inline> means a company or partnership that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is a *registered tax agent or BAS agent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) has more than 100 employees.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A company or partnership whose registration as a registered tax agent or registered BAS agent is suspended remains a registered tax agent or BAS agent for the purposes of this section (see subsection 30-25(4)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) An <inline font-style="italic">executive officer </inline>of a company means a director, secretary or senior manager (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Corporations Act 2001</inline>) of the company.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20 Subsection 90-1(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community representative </inline>has the meaning given by section 60-25.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">executive officer </inline>has the meaning given by section 60-25.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">prescribed tax agent </inline>has the meaning given by section 60-25.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21 Application of Board member appointment amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Tax Agent Services Act 2009</inline> made by this Part apply in relation to any appointment of a Board member made after the commencement of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 5 — The Code of Professional Conduct</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Tax Agent Services Act 2009</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">22 At the end of subsection 30-20(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (d) requiring you to notify, in writing, all of your current clientsabout the findings of the Board's investigation specified in the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">23 Subdivision 30-C (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Notifying a change of circumstances", substitute "Other obligations".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24 After paragraphs 30-35(1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ba) you have reasonable grounds to believe that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) you have breached the *Code of Professional Conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the breach is a *significant breach of the Code; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">25 Subsection 30-35(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When notice must be given</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) You must give the notice within 30 days of the day on which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) you become, or ought to have become, aware that the event occurred (unless paragraph (1)(ba), (2)(ba) or (3)(ba) applies); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if paragraph (1)(ba), (2)(ba) or (3)(ba) applies—you first have, or ought to have, reasonable grounds to believe that you have breached the *Code of Professional Conduct, and that the breach is a *significant breach of the Code.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A breach of this subsection is a breach of section 8C of the <inline font-style="italic">Taxation Administration Act 1953</inline> and of subsection 30-10(2) of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">26 At the end of Subdivision 30-C</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30-40 Obligation to notify of significant breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If you are a *registered tax agent or BAS agent, you must notify the Board, in writing, if you have reasonable grounds to believe that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) another registered tax agent or BAS agent has breached the *Code of Professional Conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the breach is a *significant breach of the Code.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In addition, if at the time you have reasonable grounds to believe that other agent has breached the Code, and that the breach is a *significant breach of the Code:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the other agent is a member of a professional association accredited by the Board under the regulations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) you are aware of that other agent's membership;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">you must notify the association, in writing, of the breach.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When you must notify</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) You must notify under subsection (1) or (2) within 30 days of the day on which you first have, or ought to have, reasonable grounds to believe that the other agent breached the Code, and that the breach is a *significant breach of the Code.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">27 Subsection 90-1(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">significant breach of the Code</inline> means a breach of the *Code of Professional Conduct by a *registered tax agent or BAS agent if the breach:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) constitutes an indictable offence, or an offence involving dishonesty, under an *Australian law; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) results, or is likely to result, in material loss or damage to another entity (including the Commonwealth); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) is otherwise significant, including taking into account any one or more of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the number or frequency of similar breaches by the agent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the impact of the breach on the agent's ability to provide *tax agent services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the extent to which the breach indicates that the agent's arrangements to ensure compliance with the Code are inadequate; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) is a breach of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28 Application of obligation amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The amendments of section 30-35 of the <inline font-style="italic">Tax Agent Services Act 2009</inline> made by this Part apply in relation to breaches that occur on or after the commencement of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Section 30-40 of the <inline font-style="italic">Tax Agent Services Act 2009</inline>, as added by this Part, applies in relation to breaches that occur on or after the commencement of this Part.</para></quote>
<para>This amendment is the first legislation to deal with some of important issues that have arisen since the PwC scandal broke. Since that scandal began to unfold, Australians have come to much better understand the power of big consultants and their literally incredible influence on our tax advice and consultancy sector, as well as their huge reach into our public sector, government decision-making and so many activities of government. The size and expansion of big consultants has introduced new risks to our tax administration system, which the PwC debacle has revealed. We've seen in too many places the capture and taming of regulatory machinery, with the voice of the big four too often dominating processes of decision-making, creating very significant conflicts of interest and hobbling regulation.</para>
<para>This amendment aims to begin the processes of unwinding that capture and those conflicts, to get those who are being regulated off the regulatory bodies. We Greens have secured government agreement to improve the system of tax administration and ensure its independence and its pursuit of the public interest to make sure it's not captive to big consultants. We need to remove both real conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest. To that end, our amendments restrict membership of the Tax Practitioners Board to community members without vested interests.</para>
<para>Our amendment will ensure that partners from the big four are banned from sitting on the TPB. The TPB regulates the tax advisory industry and has the power to deregister tax advisers who engage in serious misconduct. The Greens amendment will ban any senior executives or partners currently working at a tax firm with more than 100 employees, or with ongoing financial links to large tax firms, from being members of the Tax Practitioners Board. Through this amendment, we're fixing the loophole that allows big consultants to regulate themselves. Through our amendment, the remaining former PwC partner on the TPB will not be able to be reappointed. We will have members of the Tax Practitioners Board who are not financially tied to those same large tax agents they are regulating.</para>
<para>The amendment also requires tax agents not only to report to the TPB if they've breached the code of professional conduct but also to report if another agent has breached the code. This is an important amendment to prevent partners protecting other partners and turning a blind eye to unethical behaviour. It widens the responsibility for unethical behaviour from the individual to others that are aware of their behaviour. This is what happened in the PwC tax scandal. If tax agents do not report such unethical behaviour, they can now be penalised. Hopefully, this means we will not be sitting here in the years ahead trying to unpick unethical tax behaviour, who did it, who was party to it, who knew about it and who did nothing to stop it. Hopefully, the whistle will be blown early, loudly and more often. Whenever someone does the wrong thing and others have witnessed it, it will be blown.</para>
<para>If we've learned anything from the PwC tax scandal, it's that we need to pay much closer attention to the regulation of the professional services sector in general and tax advisers in particular. The Australian public will no longer tolerate self-regulation and the capture of regulatory machinery. They want it to work fairly, ethically and in the public interest, with penalties for those who do the wrong thing.</para>
<para>We thank the Labor government and, in particular, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, and his staff, for his willingness to reach agreement with us on these important changes. The minister has also agreed to use his new legislative powers to implement some important changes to the tax practitioners code of professional conduct, to make sure they properly capture and describe behaviour that assists an ethical and effective tax advisory system upheld by all who work in this field. I commend this amendment to the Senate. I'm confident it's a positive and powerful step in the right direction.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to put on the record that the government supports this amendment and thanks Senator Pocock and the Greens for bringing forward this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I preface my questions to Senator Pocock by reiterating that the coalition endorses the excellent work that the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee has been doing in exposing this unethical behaviour, which everyone in this chamber would find unacceptable and which absolutely does not meet community standards and expectations. But, Senator Pocock, if I might just inquire about matters of consultation, can you share with the Senate chamber which industry stakeholders you have consulted on this amendment and their view or views?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Through our inquiry, there's been very wide discussion with a broad range of community representatives about the changes that are proposed here, and I've certainly had extensive correspondence in relation to this. I think there's a high level of support for responding to the specific issues that have arisen in relation to PwC, and there is strong endorsement of seeing elimination of perceived conflicts of interest and actual conflicts of interest. Certainly, in the evidence that our inquiry has taken from all of the big four, there is a strong commitment to seeing ethical practice, more transparency and governance that the Australian community can have confidence in.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sticking with the specific matter of the amendment itself rather than the principle of the amendment, which community stakeholders have been engaged and what has been their view, and which industry stakeholders have been engaged and what is their view?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't have in front of me a list of the correspondence that I have received from particular agencies, but a number of community organisations and consultants have been in contact, including a number of smaller and mid-sized ones who want to see a more open and more representative group of people involved in these governance structures.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Pocock. Could you provide to the chamber the details of when this proposition was put to government? In your remarks you mentioned the minister, Mr Jones, and you congratulated him for his cooperation. Could you detail for the chamber when those discussions began and on what date a commitment was extended to you?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's been a very extensive period of consultation between government and our offices, and I think it's up to the government to reveal those details in response to that. But you can be confident, Senator Smith, that there has been an extensive and detailed discussion about every element that's in our amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, could you provide to the chamber the details of the date on which Senator Pocock or others from the Australian Greens political party proposed this particular amendment to you and the nature of the discussions that happened in the government? On what date did you give the Australian Greens political party a commitment to support this particular amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that there have been discussions over a number of weeks. I think it's been clear in my response to the second reading speeches just what has occurred in those, so perhaps you'd like to go back over <inline font-style="italic">Hansard </inline>and have a look at that. But we certainly do commend the Greens for having brought this forward.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The <inline font-style="italic">Hansard </inline>doesn't provide any information in terms of the date on which this particular amendment proposition was put before the government, the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard </inline>doesn't record the dates on which Treasury and others in government deliberated on the proposed commencement and the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> doesn't detail the date on which the government gave the Australian Greens a commitment that it would support this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said in my previous response, this has been going on for a number of weeks. I don't have a particular date for the senator, and I will leave it at that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Are they matters that you or Treasury officials can take on notice and provide to the chamber?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely. I can certainly take that on notice for you and provide it a later date.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. To Senator Pocock, just to be clear: in the amendment there is reference to obligations to notify of significant breaches of the code of professional conduct. With regard to that, can you confirm that a registered tax agent will not have to report a breach if they read about it in a newspaper or a news story?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that it is when a partner, a senior official or anyone in that tax agency has knowledge of something which would be in breach of the code of conduct that they should give that advice to the relevant agency. I imagine that, if the matter is public, that is in a different category, because it would be widely known. When we look at the matter that evolved within PwC, we see that, clearly, a significant breach of ethics had occurred behind closed doors and was not available to public scrutiny.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, given the government's support for Senator Pocock's amendment, can you confirm that a registered tax agent will not have to report a breach if they read about it in a newspaper or in a news story?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The issues in the industry have been well canvassed through the media and through multiple Senate inquiries, and these amendments respond to the numerous stakeholder submissions that have called for change and action in this space. The amendments by the Greens will receive further scrutiny on how they are implemented. The Tax Practitioners Board will release draft guidance on the proposed disclosure requirements, and this guidance will be provided both publicly and directly to industry through TPB's governance and consultative forums. The TPB will consider the feedback before finalising the guidance.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for that, Minister. Can you provide further detail with regard to what further scrutiny will take place, the time frame and expectations around that additional scrutiny process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that the TPB orders will consult, as is its current standard.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Excuse my ignorance, but what is the current standard?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding, and as I'm advised, is the TPB now makes its decisions based on the areas and the people that it consults with. Clearly, it already does that, and it will continue to do so.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So, despite the public outrage, despite the united view of this Senate chamber in its outrage to the unethical behaviour, the scrutiny process with regard to this proposal wouldn't be expediated?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Firstly, I don't agree with the senator's assumption on any of those fronts. This was clearly a concern raised through our Senate process, Senator, and you know that. I think it's important to put on the record not only what the Greens have done but also what Senator O'Neill has done in terms of the inquiry that took place under the procedures of this house—that something had to change. This amendment has gone through the minister's office. It's gone through this Senate in terms of the second reading speech. If anything, I want to understand: are you not supporting this amendment? Is that what's happening here?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Normal practice is for us to come to a position at the conclusion of our inquiries through the committee stage, but it is true that we are interested to understand the consultation process.</para>
<para>Turning to Senator Pocock, if I may, was the Institute of Public Accountants, CPA Australia, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, the Tax Institute, the Law Council of Australia or the Australian Bookkeepers Association consulted on your particular amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer you to my earlier answer about the general conversations and consultation that occurred.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, did the government consult the Institute of Public Accountants, the CPA Australia, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, the Tax Institute, the Law Council of Australia or the Australian Bookkeepers Association?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We will certainly take on notice the specific question you've raised and provide that for you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Keeping that in mind, how do you explain then the comments of those organisations who are said to have said that it was a considerable surprise and concern that the first time the professional bodies became aware of the amendments was in various newspaper articles on 8 November?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As Senator Pocock has said, there have been many discussions on the inquiry itself and the minister's role. I'll certainly put on the record that I'm happy to bring that back from the minister's office in terms of those organisations. But we are, on this side of the chamber, very satisfied that this amendment will make the appropriate adjustments that are required as per the process that we followed through the Senate inquiry.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Has the government identified any possible risks or unintended consequences with regard to this particular amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are confident in this amendment. That's why we're supporting it. But we also understand that the TPB will need to do what it needs to do to follow up in terms of this amendment and the changes. But we are confident in this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So, the government is confident in the amendment, despite the fact that the scrutiny process has not actually started?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've answered that question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the event that any unintended consequences are identified, is the government prepared to bring back to the parliament necessary legislative changes to deal with any unintended consequences or unforeseen matters that might arise through the further scrutiny process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Please refer to my previous answer. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to be clear: to what extent has the government itself, or the Treasury, explored and satisfied itself that this amendment is suitable?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I'm not sure how many ways I can answer it, but we are certain that this amendment is one that should be supported. I've already put on the record, through the response and the second reading speech, why that is the case. We're here, and we're just waiting for your response to it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given the comments of the Institute of Public Accountants, CPA Australia, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, the Tax Institute, the Law Council of Australia and the Bookkeepers Association, has the government engaged with them following their comment that the amendment came with particular surprise and concern?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the greatest of respect, this question has been put to me in a different way and I've already responded to that question by saying that we will take on notice the consultation that's occurred, and I have said that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To be fair, I think it is an answer such that Treasury officials will be well aware of whether they have consulted with significant stakeholders like the ones I have mentioned. So, my question, again, is: has the government or has the Treasury consulted with these particular organisations or others since the release of this amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am advised that we have responded to this question. I did say I would bring back further information to the parliament and have taken previous questions around this on notice. There's not much more I can say.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Did the government secure or offer to the Australian Greens political party any other matters in exchange for their support for this amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I reject outright the insinuation by the senator here. This is a very good amendment that has been brought forward as a result of our Senate inquiries. We all sit on different Senate inquiries, and I think we're pretty proud of the work that is done in terms of research on those and the witnesses who come forward. So, I do caution you, Senator, in terms of the words you're using to imply that something else has taken place here. This is an important amendment. Your questions only show that perhaps you don't agree with this amendment and that perhaps you're not as outraged as we on the government side have been about the behaviour of PwC.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to express my surprise. I have sat for the last eight months in collaborative outrage with Senator Colbeck, and we have on a number of occasions shared our concern, which is on <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, about the fact that the PwC scandal took eight years to come to the attention of the Australian public. There are many reasons why it took so long, and we have a bunch of other measures which are needed to deal with the secrecy that prevents open and proper discussion by the ATO with other agencies. The fines that are there for people who commit misdemeanours are clearly inadequate, and Senator Colbeck and members of your party have shared their outrage with me.</para>
<para>One of the key measures we need to take is to assure the Australian public that there is no potential conflict of interest on a regulatory body like the Tax Practitioners Board, which regulates tax agents. They need confidence that those who are regulated are not represented on that board. That is what this measure does. So I am surprised that you would not see merit in strengthening that regulatory provision and ensuring that very large tax organisations and their businesses are not supported by members. It's not just recusing themselves from meetings where they're actual agents and their behaviour is being discussed. It is actually ensuring that the practice, the culture and the general meetings that are held by the Tax Practitioners Board are seen to be above conflict and actually behave in ways that are above conflict. That is what this amendment does, and I'm surprised that you're questioning the specific measures that are being proposed in this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Pocock. There is no need for surprise. Good ideas that are poorly legislated are in no-one's interest. That is the first point. The second point is that coalition senators absolutely support the characterisation of Senator Colbeck's contribution in the committee work that you and Senator O'Neill and others have done. The discussion here is on a committee stage of a bill, which, to be fair to the Australian Greens, they utilise with great effect to interrogate particular policy positions and particular legislative amendments. That is what I am doing here, because in the short exchange we have had we have found that there could be very high risk that your very good and noble idea is poorly legislated or, worse, is not given the priority of the further scrutiny process. So, Senator Pocock, in all fairness, what the coalition is doing here is scrutinising what could be a good and noble idea to make sure that, when translated into legislation, it does what you expect it to do. That is the first point. The second is that, if the government had been able to come to the chamber and say to Senator Smith, 'We have consulted with this group, this group and this group; these were the dates and these were the outcomes,' then there would be a much higher level of confidence. They have not been able to do that.</para>
<para>The scrutiny process that I am engaging in is necessary, is proper and is quite separate and distinct from what we all know, what we've all seen and what we're all equally outraged by, in regard to the work of the Senate references committee on the PwC scandal. This is quite a separate matter. I do not apologise for one moment if the coalition wants to satisfy itself that this has been properly and thoroughly consulted on, because, if it hasn't been and there are unintended consequences through the further scrutiny process, the government will have to come back here. The other thing, if I could say this—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I see Senator McKim mocking. Well, the Australian Greens have had a pretty poor track record when it comes to dealing with the government and the government honouring its commitments to the Australian people.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, you'd have to agree with me on that point. But that's not the substantive matter. We want to satisfy ourselves—and it's a very fair request—that this has been more than a deal. We want to make sure it's been thoroughly canvassed and properly scrutinised and enjoys the support of stakeholders beyond this chamber. Thus far, I've not been able to satisfy myself that that's the case.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I participated in the inquiry, I wanted to see if I could be helpful to Senator Smith in highlighting that the work that Senator O'Neill has done, Senator Colbeck has done and Senator Pocock has done identified the problems and really highlighted the fact that the Tax Practitioners Board's powers and make-up and the obligations on tax and BAS agents to report suspected breaches of the code were all areas that needed to be improved. This amendment put forward by the Greens provides the framework for that. But, of course, the kind of consultation that you highlighted mentioning the stakeholders, such as the CPA and other professional bodies, will need to be looked at and consultation around the implementation of this new provision will need to take place to make sure we get it right. I have that confidence, based on the way these issues have been aired.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll make a couple of observations. I understand this is a little off brand for me in recent months, but I do genuinely want to acknowledge Minister Stephen Jones for the constructive approach that he has taken to discussions and negotiations with the Australian Greens and genuinely thank him and his staff for their engagement on this issue and ultimately for their agreement to these amendments. It is genuinely appreciated.</para>
<para>I also want to respond to a couple of matters that have arisen through Senator Smith's contributions. Firstly, when this question is put shortly, we will find out whether the Liberal and National parties in this place are going to go in to bat for the big consultants regulating themselves and the big corporations in the tax advisory sector actually regulating themselves, so the fox running amok in the henhouse. That's what we are about to find out. When Senator Smith says that the normal practice of the opposition is to form a position after inquiries at the committee stages, that is most emphatically not the case. In the overwhelming majority of situations, Senator Smith well knows that the opposition have formed a view well before they get into the committee stages of any particular piece of legislation. This will be the test, and it is coming up, I believe, in the next few minutes.</para>
<para>We know that the Australian Greens and the government are actually going to take the first legislative step in response to what has been a disgraceful scandal regarding the behaviour of one individual, but behaviour that is symptomatic of an entire sector, the big four consultants. This behaviour was exposed by this Senate. The business model of these consulting firms is based on things like conflicts of interest and effectively insider trading. We are about to find out whether the opposition is going to back in business as usual, which has appalled and shocked millions of Australians, as the revelations have rolled out through the inquiries of this Senate and through some very good public interest journalism in this regard. We're about to find out whether the opposition is going to back in good governance and significant steps towards abolishing not just perceived conflicts of interest but actual conflicts of interest. The test is coming up now, and this will be the key for the opposition. We're about to find out whose side they're on. Are they on the side of the Australian people and good governance or are they in the pockets of the big corporations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that the question be put.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If it assists the chamber, we are on sheet 2161, Greens amend ments (1) and (2). The question is that the question be put.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [11:14] <br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Hughes) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a brief statement, of two minutes.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2161 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Hume, I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2038:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, page 34 (line 1) to page 40 (line 21), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<para>In the final two amendments in the committee stage of this Treasury laws amendment bill the opposition will be seeking to repeal schedule 4, which is the subject of amendment on sheet 2038, and then seeking to repeal schedule 5, which is the subject of sheet 2043. In doing so we are trying to do a big favour—a very, very big favour—for the government, and that is to stop it from going down the path of breaking another promise. This is not an ordinary promise. It is a promise that was made by Mr Albanese, now the Prime Minister, when he was opposition leader and a promise that was made by Dr Chalmers as the Treasurer. Before we get to the broken promises that are the core of this Treasury laws amendment bill, I will remind you of two other promises.</para>
<para>In August 2022 Mr Albanese as Prime Minister made this promise. He said that the Australian people deserve accountability and transparency and not secrecy. Unfortunately, in the previous amendments, on sheet 2161, moved by Senator Barbara Pocock and agreed to by the government, we got a glimpse of some of that secrecy. The opposition did not oppose the principle of what was contained in Senator Pocock's amendment—not at all. In fact, we agree with the principle that sits behind the amendment. But what was demonstrated in that very, very brief committee stage was that Senator Pocock and the Australian Greens were not completely prepared to share with the Senate chamber what was the community stakeholder engagement and the industry stakeholder engagement around their proposition, and the government itself could not or would not share with the chamber whether or not it had consulted with peak industry associations on that amendment. What does that mean? That means it could go wrong. That means it could not be as perfect as Senator Pocock and others would like it to be. Why did we have some concerns about that consultation process and why did we want to draw it out in the committee stage? It was because the industry associations themselves had said that they were surprised about the amendment. It came as a surprise.</para>
<para>We have had and continue to have a thorough Senate references inquiry into the PwC scandal, which everyone in this chamber agrees is outrageous and everyone in the community agrees is outrageous. It is a committee process that is still ongoing—I am happy to stand corrected; Senator Colbeck is in the chamber. For those in this chamber who agree that the Senate process is one of the standout features of our parliamentary democracy, what we just saw was a group of people say: 'We'll just take this out of the process. We're not going to consult with anyone. We're going to drop it into the Senate and we're going to legislate it.' In further questions the government they couldn't even say whether the scrutiny process to give effect to this would be expedited. From Senator Pratt's contribution—reading between the lines—it could possibly go wrong. Really? We have a thorough Senate committee process. We have engagement with stakeholders on a broad range of issues, but on this particular issue some key stakeholders—the Institute of Public Accountants, CPA Australia, CPA New Zealand, the Tax Institute, the Law Council of Australia, the Bookkeepers Association—were not consulted. That does not bode well. The Prime Minister said to people in August 2022 that he believed that Australians deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy—let me add to his quote—'on some matters'.</para>
<para>I turn to the matter that is before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. On three separate occasions, the Prime Minister said there would be no changes of this kind brought to the parliament. In January 2021, the Prime Minister, when he was the opposition leader, promised not to make any changes to franking credits. Remember? He did that because he remembers all too well that Australians rejected the former opposition leader Bill Shorten and denied him the opportunity to govern this country in the 2019 election in large part because of Labor's plans on franking credits. So the Prime Minister, when he was the opposition leader, said, 'The best way to protect myself and the best way to protect my party is to give a commitment that we won't touch it.' And he gave that commitment in January 2021. Then, on 30 March in 2021, the Prime Minister, as opposition leader, thought: 'I better give it to the Australian electorate again. Let me give them that commitment again just in case they haven't heard me.' He said on ABC radio that Labor won't have any changes to the franking credits regime. In March 2022, Treasurer Chalmers was on ABC radio in Perth, in my home state of Western Australia, and listeners were told that Labor would not be touching franking credits—a broken promise on a litany of other broken promises in just 17 months of this government.</para>
<para>The coalition in the Senate is seeking to repeal schedules 4 and 5, to allow the government to make good and stay good on that election commitment that was given to Australian voters. Prime Minister Albanese, when he was the opposition leader, knew exactly what he was doing. This was not about tax. It was about raising taxes, but it wasn't about trying to give Australians a degree of comfort around tax issues and franking credits. It was a political ploy to remove one barnacle from their possible re-election—the issue of franking credits that had caused them so much harm in the 2019 election. He said: 'We'll fix this. We'll go out there not once, not twice but three times.' Then Dr Chalmers goes out there and says, 'We won't touch franking credits.' And many retirees and mum-and-dad investors thought: 'Great! What a relief. Labor has learnt the lessons from the 2019 election.' How wrong were Australian voters! How wrong were they to have trusted Anthony Albanese, opposition leader now Prime Minister, and Dr Chalmers, then shadow Treasurer now Treasurer. How wrong they were, unfortunately, to have trusted Labor because Labor has broken their promise.</para>
<para>What we are seeking to do here—what Labor, with the support of the Greens and unfortunately some of the crossbench, is seeking to do—is honour their broken election promise. How remarkable! If you read the excellent dissenting report that Senator Bragg wrote you will see page upon page of evidence from people saying that this will harm them, and it will harm them at a time when they're feeling most vulnerable with regard to their financial situation because of the cost-of-living crisis—because of interest rate rises and inflation. We think that every election commitment should be honoured, but, when I think about all of the election commitments that this government has broken in just 17 months, I would think that this is probably the election commitment that they should absolutely keep because it will take the financial pressure off retirees and mum-and-dad investors. If the Australian Greens and the crossbench let the government get away by legislating this broken promise, it will just give the government permission to break other promises or even to make promises and break them—if this Senate chamber is not going to stand up and say, 'We're not going to have it.' And the best way you hold Labor accountable is by supporting the opposition's position to repeal schedules 4 and 5. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to make a contribution in respect of the points that Senator Smith made in relation to the government's promises in two senses. One is in relation to the fact that the government said that it would not touch franking credits. That was a clear election commitment, and we can add that to the now growing list of broken promises of this government of broken promises. This government promised a $275 reduction in power prices, higher real wages and now, on top of those and a number of other things, the promise that it would not touch franking credits. This government is clearly now a government of broken promises. This government also promised to govern through proper process and, as we saw through the last amendment, that clearly has not happened. We will see at the end of this amendment the test of the deal that was done between Labor and the Greens on the last amendment. I have to say I find it completely objectionable that my name would be taken, as it was in the chamber during the debate on the last amendment—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But Senator Smith said that he supported the amendment in principle.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pratt, if you want to make a contribution, get up and make a contribution later. I am making my contribution now. The issues have been raised in the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, and they are considerable and do warrant some change. The fact is that I am as outraged, as are Senator Pocock and everyone else on that committee and, I think, everyone else in this chamber, about the behaviour of PwC, but that that then translates to a simple agreement with the Greens for a solution does not fly.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How is that relevant to the question before the chair?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was what was inferred, and I was listening in the chamber, Senator McKim. I object to the fact that my name has been taken, and that because I am outraged, which I am, at the behaviour of PwC, that naturally translates to agreement with the Greens solution. It clearly has been shown that neither the government nor the Greens consulted with anybody in the design of that amendment. Nobody was consulted. They found out about it in the paper, like everybody else. The government and the Greens have done a deal. It is a broken promise of the government for good governance, Senator McKim, quite simply. The Finance and Public Administration References Committee has not completed its inquiry. It has made no recommendations, so the sense from the minister or anyone else in this chamber that this has been through some committee process and that is a rationale for the amendment that was just passed is false. The minister might like to go back and review the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> afterwards and check to see whether the answers that have been put on the record actually stand up in the context of the committee process that we're undertaking right now.</para>
<para>The committee does not report until next year. It has made no recommendations in relation to what might happen with the Tax Practitioners Board. It may very well make recommendations. I very much appreciate the cooperative nature of the work on the committee by Senator Pocock, Senator O'Neill and Senator Pratt, which is shown in the way we are working through the issues here. We worked very closely together on dealing with this important matter. But we have made no recommendations, so any suggestion that this amendment came out of a committee process, particularly the one that I am chairing, is false. I find it outrageous that the government have to take on notice the question as to whether they have spoken to any of the bodies that Senator Smith mentioned, which are key bodies in the accounting profession. The fact the government couldn't answer that question effectively is the answer to the question. There has been no consultation, and there should have been. This is a very serious matter. The governance of the tax and accounting system through the Tax Practitioners Board is a very serious matter, and it warrants being done properly. It does warrant being done properly.</para>
<para>I think it's important that I put on the record that there have been no recommendations from the Finance and Public Administration References Committee. We will be considering this matter as a part of our continued work, as we should. But I reject out of hand any reflection that, because I'm outraged, we should adopt the Greens' solution. I do make the point that this government has a record of breaking promises, which grows as we pass through every week. I've named a couple of them today. We're just about to add another two to the process through the amendments that we just passed. The test on another one will come when we come to the vote on this amendment. The two are joined at the hip as part of the deal; there's no question about that in my mind.</para>
<para>The government should consider very carefully the words of Senator Smith when he said that we are trying to protect them from themselves in breaking yet another promise when we get to the vote on this particular amendment that the opposition has put forward. The government promised that it would have a proper cabinet and consultation process. It clearly didn't. It needs to lift its game in that sense. The important matter of the regulation of the accounting and tax professions through the Tax Practitioners Board should not be a matter of clandestine deals done out the back without anybody in the profession knowing. Quite frankly, the government should be ashamed of themselves for not going through a proper process so that, as Senator Smith quite rightly said, we can get the right outcome, which is what those of us sitting around the table in the committee genuinely want in the provision of oversight of these professions that are so important to the operation of so many of our corporations in this country. It's not the matter for a backroom deal. It's a matter for a proper consultation process, and the fact that the government can't say when the consultations were or even what the consultation process will be is a complete indictment of what they've done on this particular matter.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg and I have a number of questions for the government. I want to focus on the impact on investment. Senator Bragg may go to some questions around costings. We'll start with Shaw and Partners financial services, which submitted to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. That submission said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It appears the legislation as it is currently drafted will unintentionally catch many situations of legitimate company operation and could accordingly delay or discourage the normal processes of capital raising, investment, and economic growth within Australia.</para></quote>
<para>My first question goes to whether the Treasury has modelled the impact of this bill on investment in Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Firstly, I would like to put on the record, in relation to Senator Colbeck's contribution, that there was certainly no expectation said about his response and his part in the committee process. I do think it's important that that is placed on the record. I would also like to respond to the allegations he made in relation to our process on this. We have conducted this to the best of our ability, and I certainly know the minister and the Department of the Treasury have done so to the best of their abilities. I think the allegations that reflect on the minister's conduct in this need to be withdrawn. There was certainly nothing spurious about the way this was processed and handled. I put on the record that I reject that outright, Chair.</para>
<para>As to Senator Smith's question on franking credits, we certainly created this in terms of preventing the double taxation of dividend earnings. We certainly stand by the imputation system and franking credits. They will remain completely intact. This measure will not affect the tax treatment of regular dividends, and the overwhelming majority of shareholders will be unaffected by these measures.</para>
<para>We did consult widely on this measure, and I bring my response back to you, Senator Smith, and your questions earlier around dates and times. I do not have those with me. I have said—and I put it on the record here in the Senate—that they will be brought forward to you. There is nothing being hidden here, and I reject that outright. Obviously, through the Senate inquiry we've heard the concerns. At no point did I say that the Senate inquiry had been completed. We heard concerns that further targeting of the measure would be beneficial. In response to these concerns, we've done what we have done here today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is still the same one: has Treasury modelled the impact of this bill on investment in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I just get a clarification, Senator Smith? Are we talking about schedule 4 or schedule 5, or both?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm talking about the bill in its entirety.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that it affects a small number of entities, but, as to the vast majority, no.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So, just to clarify, is it that a small number of entities have modelled the impact of the bill on investment or that the bill has been modelled against a small number of entities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It will not affect the tax treatment of regular dividends, and the overwhelming majority of shareholders will be unaffected by these measures. And it will not affect the regular capital-raising activities of companies.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How has the Treasury come at that view?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that Treasury has consulted widely on this. I reflect back on some of your previous questions around the organisations that were consulted with, and I'll be providing that to you and to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. I'm just trying to get an understanding of whether the government thinks the bill will have a positive or negative impact on investment in Australia and how it has come at that view.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that the evidence that has been seen is that it has been supported with investment continuing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Perhaps on notice, could the government respond to this question: what is the expected aggregate benefit or penalty to investment in Australia as a result of this particular Treasury bill? How has that view been formed? What is the mechanism through which that view was formed? Was it modelling or stakeholder consultation? This is not an exhaustive list but just to provide some guidance. What was the more granular nature of that modelling or stakeholder consultation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We will take those questions on notice for you. I'm advised that capital raising using franking credits largely ceased once the Liberal government announced they were closing that loophole.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So you'll take that information on notice? Thank you very much. I turn to Chartered Accountants Australia New Zealand and CPA Australia. They submitted to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We believe the drafting in Schedule 5 is unnecessarily broad, making it difficult for companies to practically apply proposed section 207-159 of the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 </inline>(ITAA 1997). The lack of specificity in the provisions and insufficient guidance in the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) means that companies will be heavily relying on the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to provide sufficient certainty to enable companies to progress with their capital management strategies.</para></quote>
<para>Has the Treasury subsequently identified or done any investigation of how much legitimate investment and market activity would be captured by this bill?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the earlier part of your question or statement, we've certainly made amendments in relation to what has come through the committee process. I will just seek advice in terms of the final aspect of your question. The advice is that the ATO will provide guidance as it normally does.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Specifically with regard to the quote from Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and CPA Australia that I read most recently, what's the Treasury's view of that stakeholder view put by those two organisations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I confirm that you're referring to the quote from their submission to the Senate inquiry?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just responded to that in my previous response.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Apologies; would you mind just responding again? My apologies if I've misunderstood it, but it didn't sound like it was an answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it was an answer. It may not be one that you like, but it was certainly an answer! What I said in my previous response to your initial question was that we are very aware of the submissions that have gone to the inquiry. They're obviously public. And we made our amendments in relation to those. That was my response to you earlier.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>But, specifically, this quote talks about schedule 5 in its current form as being 'unnecessarily broad'.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>McCARTHY (—) (): And that's exactly what I'm referring to. We've made amendments to schedule 5 to respond to the issues raised in the committee—and the explanatory memorandum. These amendments clarify the scope in response to that feedback.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Am I right to assume that Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and CPA Australia were consulted on that government amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will take that on notice in terms of a direct interaction. I did say that earlier in response to your questions—that I would bring those dates and times with organisations to the Senate. But, in a broader context with the submissions that have been provided to the Senate inquiry, that's where my response is coming from for you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Gilbert + Tobin stated that the schedule would create uncertainty and would be impractical, at least in the context of public market transactions. Their quote goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 5 creates unwarranted uncertainty and lacks simplicity, imposing a significant compliance burden on shareholders. Moreover, the level of evidence demanded by Schedule 5 may be well beyond the reasonable reach of the majority of shareholders. These factors combine to make Schedule 5 an unworkable provision…</para></quote>
<para>Why doesn't the government accept that criticism?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that that consultation occurred widely with industry before we introduced these amendments. So we do believe we've clarified the scope appropriately.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given the quote from Gilbert + Tobin and the government's assertion that its amendment narrowed this, did you consult with Gilbert + Tobin on the amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, if I could just refer you back to my previous answer with regard to individual organisations and companies, I said we would bring that to you on notice. So I will not be able to answer that directly in terms of individual companies or organisations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The matter of the established practice test was alluded to in Senator Bragg's contributions. The ASA submitted to the Senate economics committee:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If the definition for the established practice in relation to dividend payments remain loose, we see the risk of an administrative and financial burden for shareholders whose companies inadvertently fall foul of the legislation. Taxpayers will be required to amend their tax returns and super funds amend their allocations to beneficial holders dating back to however long it takes for the transaction to be classified.</para></quote>
<para>Does the government accept that comment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've certainly clarified that in terms of the scope, and I've said here that the ATO will provide guidance on that, which will be the same with regard to this question as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Did the government consult with the Australian Shareholders Association on the amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, we can be here all afternoon asking about individual organisations and companies. I refer to my previous answer to you—that I've taken on notice to give you the times and dates of when those consultations may, or may not, have occurred.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just for the sake of clarity: in the previous debate we were talking about time lines, dates and consultations specifically in regard to Senator Pocock's amendment. What we're talking about here is consultations in regard to the government's amendment—just so that we're clear on that distinction.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have said here a number of times that we have consulted widely. If you want specific times and dates in regard to our amendment then perhaps that's the question you're asking.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That is the question I'm asking. So, to be clear, we talked about consultation with the Australian Shareholders' Association. We talked about consultation with Gilbert and Tobin. We talked about consultation with Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and with CPA Australia. And we talked about Shaw and Partners Financial Services.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, we've taken those names, and we will get back to you on that. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to ask some questions about schedule 5, in relation to the costing. Treasury have said that the costing difference in the budget arises from the imputation system operating as intended in the absence of contrived arrangements. What is the current costing for the forward estimates?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is $10 million per year.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I guess what I'm trying to understand is why there is a costing of $10 million each year when the Treasury department had said, during the committee hearing into the bill, that, in their words, 'There aren't any cases of this.'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that if nothing was done to stop the bad activities then we would see that cost go up.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay. The Treasury said in answer to a question on notice, 'There was no confirmed activity linked to franked distributions funded by capital raising since 2016.' So, I'm just trying to understand how there could be a change to the budget position, if there's been no activity that this measure is apparently designed to address in the past seven years.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That would probably be because, under the previous government, the then minister responsible for the Treasury, Scott Morrison, had brought it forward as something that was going to occur in terms of closing the loophole, and that never occurred, which is why we are now doing it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What is the costing based on? Is it based on data from current market conditions today? Or is it based on market data from 2016?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's based on what would occur if nothing was going to happen at all. It was clear that that wasn't what we could do. We had to do something.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What inputs did Treasury use to come up with that $10 million? If there's been no activity for seven years, I'm trying to understand how there could be contemporaneous costing done.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised, Senator Bragg, that we're using the latest and only data—from 2016.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to confirm that, the data for a measure in 2023 is based on data from 2016-17. Can you explain how the time value of money and inflation have impacted that $10 million costing from seven years ago?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg, I just want to put on the record here that Treasury didn't admit that there was no need for changes in this bill. Treasury is specifically on the record saying that the measure would continue to protect future revenue at risk if the government did not legislate this measure and that existing legislation is not adequate. They note that, if there weren't that legislation, it would send a signal that the behaviour that had been witnessed before the alert issued in 2016 could be allowed to resume. So, yes, we are looking at it in its entirety from here to 2016, and the fact that that loophole was never closed is why we're standing here today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question was: how has the $10 million been adjusted over the last seven years? Has that been affected by the time value of money and inflation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer you again to the genesis of all this. As I said, the Liberal government announced that they were going to close this loophole. If the government indicated that it would never be legislated, then the activity would likely start again. If you're concerned that there hasn't been any data for seven years, you'd have to take that up with the member for Cook in the other place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not clear to me whether the $10 million costing has been inflated or whether the time value of money has been taken into account here. That's the question. The question is not about other people. The question is about how the costing in your budget has been developed and how it stacks up.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am advised that it is based on the best available data.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does it seem peculiar to you that data collected seven years ago, when there was market activity which was a cause for concern, generates the same number seven years later, when there's none of that market activity?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>During the committee process, I sought the advice of the PBO to do a costing on this measure, and the Treasury did not agree to the disclosure of information to the PBO for the purposes of this costing. Can you explain why that happened?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that secrecy provisions prevented the full release—due to tax secrecy laws.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So how confident are you that this costing will stand up? Do you think there is a risk that this costing, given it's based on such ancient data, is not going to be right, particularly given the uncertainty about the way that the drafting of the bill stands and given the considerable stakeholder concern about whether it has a wider application? What is your view, for the record, about the likelihood that this particular costing is in fact not an accurate and contemporaneous costing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We stand by our costings. As I said in my previous response, if you have questions around the genesis of this and what has happened over the past seven years, I refer you to your colleague Scott Morrison MP, in the other house.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you explain that point to me, Minister? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will gladly explain that to you. Let's remember that the reason why we're standing here trying to close a loophole actually began under the then Treasurer Scott Morrison MP. A lot of the estimates that we've come to in terms of the costings, in terms of the questions that Senator Bragg has been putting to me, come from that time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You would concede that the economic environment in our country, and indeed the growth of our economy, has changed considerably between 2016 and 2023-24?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've responded, we've used the best data available to us. If you wish to seek more information, please, as I've said, go to the previous Treasurer, who brought this in at that time. That's going to be my same response.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you suggesting that the Australian economy in 2023-24 is going to look like 2016, as a result of Labor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer you to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There was a matter in the inquiry process that my attention was drawn to, and it was the international experience under similar arrangements. I will just paraphrase some of the evidence that was provided to the committee. The United Kingdom experience is that the dismantling of the advance corporations tax has shown that institutional ownership of companies listed on the United Kingdom stock market has plummeted. In 2000, insurance companies and pension funds owned about 38.7 per cent of the UK stock market. By 2020, they owned just 4.3 per cent, with the money being moved overseas into foreign companies and into alternative assets. As I mentioned, this was raised by a number of industry experts during the Senate inquiry. Has the Treasury had an opportunity to look at those statements, look at that experience in the United Kingdom, and reassure the parliament that we are free from a similar outcome?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My response to that is that Australia and the UK are different countries, with different tax laws, and we will always have a look at what benefits Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So you're confident that that thematic—money being shifted into foreign countries and into alternative assets overseas—will not be realised here in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. I refer you to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Did the Treasury do any analysis to come to that view?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it's certainly a fairly well-known view that the UK has different tax laws to Australia's tax laws.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On notice, if the Treasury did any work to come to that view, if that could be made to the chamber, that would be appreciated.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We'll take that on notice.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Treasury has suggested that there's no present issue with companies misusing franking credits under schedule 5, following the introduction of the taxpayer alerts in 2015 targeting perceived misbehaviour. I use the example of the UK's advance corporation tax again, which has shown the unintended consequences of tinkering with franking credit arrangements and that those consequences could be far reaching. Could you please explain again the rationale for the changes and why the proposed legislation goes beyond the points outlined in the 2015 taxpayer alert, which, if the Treasury's evidence is to be accepted, effectively stopped incidences of this behaviour?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, the behaviour stopped simply because the parliament had said that it would move ahead in 2016 in terms of closing these loopholes. If we had done nothing and had sent that message more broadly across the country then of course those activities would have started again. That's why we're moving these amendments so that we can close this loophole.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you then explain to me the relationship between the evidence you have provided on the costings questions raised by Senator Bragg if the behaviour has ceased?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My response to Senator Bragg was actually about the fact that we've referred to data from 2016-17 to now, and that at no point did we say that the activity was overwhelmingly out there. We know that if we don't close this loophole, it leaves open to the general broader community that that behaviour can start again. The fact is that this loophole was never closed. When you were in government the then Treasurer, Scott Morrison, did not close this loophole as he said he would. That's the why we're standing here today to close that loophole.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The committee received quite a bit of evidence in regard to the established practice test and suggestions that it would unfairly prejudice small and medium-sized companies and instead favour larger entities. Does the Treasury have a view on that comment and commentary?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, as I've said previously, we are confident that we have targeted those particular concerns in the measure here. I refer to my previous responses in regard to that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is it the intention of the Treasury or the ATO to monitor behaviour to ensure that it isn't unfairly prejudicing small and medium-sized companies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, this doesn't change the role of the ATO. The ATO does that anyway. As I've said previously, there will be guidance sought from the ATOs as to steps forward in regard to not only what we're doing here with this piece of legislation but any other issues that the government needs to be aware of.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is it available to the ATO or the Treasury to make available to the parliament information relating to the impact on small and medium-sized companies in the next year, two years, three years?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, there are a lot of hypotheticals there. I think we do know what the role of the ATO is, and we also know that there are secrecy laws as part of its role in conducting its duties. I refer to my previous answer. This is an important piece of legislation that does need to pass. I just ask that we move this to where it needs to be.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In evidence before the committee, a lot of attention was drawn to the negative impacts on retirees and mum-and-dad investors. How does the Treasury and the government reassure retirees and mum-and-dad investors that they won't be negatively impacted by this initiative?</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
<para>The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will now move to senators' statements.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>31</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Return of Cultural Heritage, Closing the Gap</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to share with the Senate a story of great significance to the Warlpiri people of the Northern Territory. It's the story of the return of culturally significant objects, and it spans many decades and even thousands of kilometres overseas. Last week, on Friday, senior Warlpiri men and staff from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, also known as AIATSIS, gathered at the South Australian Museum to finally welcome home a collection of sacred objects from the USA. The return of this material was a collaboration between AIATSIS and the Warlpiri Project, a Warlpiri created and led project which works to help Warlpiri to repatriate ancestors and objects. The return of these objects from the US all the way to the desert community of Yuendumu has been a long time coming. Warlpiri elders and emerging leaders shared the significance of this moment, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We're not talking about repatriation we're doing it. Senior Men are working hand in hand with younger generations to teach our Tjukurpa. We've opened the doors to create a stronger pathway for us to transfer knowledge to our younger Warlpiri. The Warlpiri Project is about learning and sharing culture on the job, younger people are learning when they are sitting next to Elders, singing along with us and walking with us. Hopefully we inspire other tribes—its significant.</para></quote>
<para>The many objects were initially collected by the late Professor Nancy Munn, who was an emerita professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago during her PhD fieldwork at Yuendumu between 1956 and 1958. In 1960, in her PhD thesis, Professor Munn explained that her research could not have been possible without the support of the Warlpiri community. She wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My most immediate debt is to the Warlpiri themselves. They were my friends and patient teachers, and knowing them has immeasurably enriched my own experience.</para></quote>
<para>As a government, we commend AIATSIS and the Warlpiri Project for their work towards the return of these very sacred objects, taken so far away for more than 60 years. It's such a significant moment for the Warlpiri people and so important for future generations to have these precious materials returned to their rightful place.</para>
<para>The return of these objects is part of a larger undertaking, led by the Warlpiri Project and Warlpiri men Karl Japaltjarri Hampton and Jamie Jungaryyi Hampton with the South Australian Museum, to return Professor Munn's entire collection of archival material relating to their people and culture. Ngemba man and interim AIATSIS CEO Mr Leonard Hill said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">AIATSIS is very happy to support the return of these sacred objects. Reuniting custodians with their sacred material is a vital part of AIATSIS's global mission to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Custodians to make decisions about their cultural heritage. This repatriation further demonstrates how AIATSIS's collaborative approach to returning material builds trusting relationships between partners, supports cultural informed decision making and achieves fantastic outcomes.</para></quote>
<para>The return of the objects was also facilitated by Professor Francoise Dussart, a professor of anthropology and women's gender and sexuality studies at the University of Connecticut and a close friend and colleague of Professor Munn. Professor Dussart has been working with the Warlpiri community at Yuendumu since the 1980s. As Professor Munn's literary executor for her Australian material, she recently prepared Professor Munn's personal research materials for archival deposit and return to the Warlpiri community. The senior Warlpiri men are returning these treasures to their keeping place at Yuendumu in due course.</para>
<para>AIATSIS has previously worked closely with the Warlpiri project to return material from the Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection of the University of Virginia, USA, and AIATSIS has been pioneering in the returning of both cultural and ancestral remains to Australia from all corners of the world. It leads the Australian government's Return of Cultural Heritage program that facilitates the return of much Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage material and supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in exercising sovereignty over cultural heritage material held in overseas collections.</para>
<para>The Return of Cultural Heritage project was established in 2018, and through the project, over 200 overseas collecting institutions with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural Heritage collections were identified. Of those, at least 124 institutions shared information regarding their collections and 74 expressed an eagerness to establish a relationship with AIATSIS and/or Indigenous communities in Australia. Significantly, 44 expressed a willingness to consider a repatriation request. During this short project, the project was able to facilitate 86 returns to five language groups. Community work continues, and research has identified 302 overseas collecting institutions holding 113,000-plus Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage items. By August 2023 AIATSIS had facilitated 18 returns of 1,976 cultural heritage items to Australia, of which 154 were returned to country.</para>
<para>I would also like to share with the Senate a meeting I had yesterday with Aboriginal organisations from Victoria. I thank my colleague Senator Jana Stewart for her coordination and for inviting Aboriginal organisations, communities and families to the parliament to come and meet with the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese; Minister Linda Burney; and me to talk about their feelings in regard to the referendum and also our steps forward. I will put on the record how important it is for all First Nations organisations and communities across the country to make sure that your voices continue to be heard. I thank the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations; the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, VACA; the Yappera Children's Service; Bubup Womindjeka Family and Children's Centre; the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc; the Aboriginal Community Elders Services; Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-operative; Djirra women's and DV and legal services; the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service; First Peoples Assembly; the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation; Taungurung Land and Waters Council; and Aboriginal Housing Victoria. I'd also like to thank the Aboriginal medical services across Victoria, who I also met with in recent weeks.</para>
<para>As I've said here on numerous occasions, there was an urgency before the referendum and there continues to be an urgency post the referendum to close the gap in the low birth weights of First Nations babies that we see across the country. The high incarceration rates of First Nations people must be reduced. We are working on health in our prisons. I am very pleased with the work we are trying to do with the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, to ensure that we see appropriate care for First Nations people in our prisons and correction systems across the country. There have been too many deaths, and most sadly, the deaths in Western Australia—words fail me. This should not be happening in our country. So I want to have at least the opportunity, through my portfolio area of Indigenous health, to see that we have the appropriate care health wise.</para>
<para>In the Northern Territory, we see the work of Danila Dilba with Don Dale and also that of congress with Alice Springs corrections. Even here in Canberra, on Ngunnawal and Ngambri country, we see the work of Winnunga with the prisons and the correction system here. I look forward to going out with the staff at Winnunga, and I thank them for what they're doing to assist our First Nations prisoners with their medical care but also by ensuring that they have life post incarceration. This is the challenge for this parliament and for our country. Because we have such a high incarceration rate of First Nations people, one of the biggest difficulties they have, when they come out, is with the options for jobs and the access to employment. So we will be working very closely on that area.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights: Tibet, Western Australia: Community Events</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the weeks surrounding the Prime Minister's visit to Beijing, we have often heard this regarding Australia-China relations: the government will cooperate with China where it can and disagree where it must. It's critical to note at the outset that there are many areas where Australia and China can and should cooperate to the ongoing benefit of both nations and our region. However, there are also areas where, guided by our own national values, we must disagree. One of those areas of disagreement is the Chinese government's policy on Tibet and the longstanding concerns regarding human rights violations and cultural suppression in that region.</para>
<para>Along with Susan Templeman MP and Senator Janet Rice, the other co-chairs of the Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet, I will tomorrow welcome Kalon Norzin Dolma at Parliament House. Ms Norzin Dolma is a minister in the Tibetan government in exile, visiting Australia to discuss the United Nations 2024 universal periodic review of China and, in particular, how this process can help create accountability and change for China's human rights record in Tibet. I call on the Albanese government to honour its responsibility and contribute meaningfully to this report, providing considered recommendations aimed at maintaining appropriate pressure on this important issue. There are thousands of Tibetan Australians across our country and over 615,000 Buddhist believers from various ethnic backgrounds. All have a deeply rooted affinity for Tibet and a vested interest in its cultural and religious liberty. Because of this, our responsibility to speak out regarding human rights issues in the region is not only a moral one but also a representative one. Tibetan and Buddhist Australians rightly expect us to represent their concerns, just as with any other diaspora in our remarkably multicultural society.</para>
<para>The present Dalai Lama turned 88 this year, and in the Buddhist tradition it is the task of the Panchen Lama to identify his reincarnated person when he passes on. Since the disappearance of the 11th Panchen Lama in 1995, Beijing has sought to dominate this sacred process, undermining a centuries-old custom which, for the first time in the history of Buddhism, risks being influenced by government bureaucracy and interests rather than time honoured sacred tradition. This is just one aspect of the broader suppression of the freedom of Buddhists in Tibet, who have been regularly obstructed and whose ranks of monks and other clergy have been vetted by the government.</para>
<para>Moving beyond matters of faith, the United Nations human rights bodies have in the last 12 months outlined escalations in other human rights violations. Reports have outlined more than one million Tibetan children being separated from their families and communities. Just think about that: reports have outlined more than one million Tibetan children being separated from their families and communities. There has been erosion of the Tibetan language in regional schools, the ongoing arrest of peaceful dissidents, and a broader trend away from Tibetan identity. All of these developments are clouded by lack of access to Tibet for international human rights lawyers and investigators.</para>
<para>Again, I look forward to meeting with Kalon Dolma later this week to learn more about the recommendations she and her colleagues have for the Australian government's contribution to the universal periodic review. I encourage the government to heed the advice of Tibetan voices such as Kalon Dolma's to develop an effective, strong submission to the review, ensuring Australia does not stay on the sidelines of human rights issues generally and particularly when it comes to human rights violations in Tibet. If the government is serious about 'cooperating where we can and disagreeing where we must', it must ensure that healthy relations with Beijing do not obstruct our values and our responsibilities to the Tibetan and Buddhist communities of Australia.</para>
<para>I'd like to turn briefly to the important and wonderful and often very colourful community events that populated my program in Western Australia on the weekend. It was a two-day snapshot of our history, our multicultural success and our generous, giving spirit in the west.</para>
<para>Last Saturday I was grateful to attend the Mount Lawley Inglewood RSL's Remembrance Day ceremony. We gathered on the historic cenotaph in Mount Lawley, one of the most beautiful in Perth's suburbs. A highlight was being joined by a group of year 10 student counsellors from Mount Lawley Senior High School. Between them, they gave a reading of <inline font-style="italic">In Flanders Fields</inline>, raised the flags and assisted with the laying of wreaths in an outstanding display of citizenship. Many thanks to Max Friend from my team for representing me and laying a wreath at the Wanneroo RSL ceremony in Perth's northern suburbs.</para>
<para>As always, there was a very large gathering of locals at the cenotaph dedicated to members of that community who served and never returned. Special thanks of course go, as they always do, to vice-president Peter Epps, warden Peter Tuck, secretary Sue Tuck and Mayor Lynda Aitken. These events, with so many people of all ages present, were evidence both of the strengths of the communities around my home and electorate office and of the profound respect that still remains for those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and values.</para>
<para>Later on the same Saturday the Midland Town Hall was transformed into one of the highlights of my year: the Kachin community's annual harvest thanksgiving festival. The hall was brilliantly decorated with fruit and vegetables and grains. I was glad to see it once again sponsored by the City of Swan, which awarded it an event grant for the third year in a row. We enjoyed traditional music. I engaged in traditional dancing and I enjoyed the food, with most of the community there in the colourful costumes that the Kachin are renowned for.</para>
<para>The Kachin are a small but proud cultural group hailing from the northernmost state in Burma. What was particularly special about the festival was that it included other Burmese ethnic leaders from my home state, with the aim of promoting awareness of the ongoing plight of those who continue to suffer at the hands of the military regime in Burma. In Burma and around the world, including in WA, there are around 8½ thousand Burmese, and they know they have my continued support and advocacy.</para>
<para>Wrapping up last weekend before the long flight back to Canberra from Perth, I joined almost a thousand Western Australians at a glamorous but very meaningful event: the 29th annual Ronald McDonald House charity ball in Western Australia. More than a thousand guests attended the event at the Crown ballroom in Perth, there to do all they could to raise funds for one of the most deserving causes imaginable. As many of my Western Australian colleagues will know, the organisation supports the state's families with sick children, providing essential family centred care, accommodation and services. For those from regional WA especially who are in the city for medical treatment, it is a precious resource in time as well as in need and care. Last year, more than $1½ million was raised, and we look forward to seeing very soon what was able to be achieved in 2023.</para>
<para>As I close, let me plug another important event, and that is of course this weekend's McHappy Day events that will be happening around our country. I encourage my parliamentary colleagues and everyone in the community to visit their local McDonald's to provide them with generous support so that they can also continue to support the wonderful work of Ronald McDonald houses around the country.</para>
<para>Again I pay tribute to each of the groups and the communities I've mentioned here and thank them for the generous support they always extend to me. Of course, as I always say, I'm available; no task is too big or too small.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits, Housing</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We live in unprecedented times. Our community is facing an unfolding climate catastrophe, a housing crisis that is continuing to get worse and the follow-on effects of a global pandemic that took so many of our friends, our family members and our neighbours. It's in times like these that our community really shines—people rely on one another, help one another build connections in our society, make communities stronger. My heart is still warmed by the stories of mutual aid groups set up in Perth that helped deliver food, medicine and supplies to those who needed them during the initial outbreak and in the days and weeks and months of COVID-19.</para>
<para>It's in times like these that people should be able to look to their government for support, for encouragement, for assistance. But so often their government hasn't been there for them and has instead forced them to rely on each other. A people's government should always be there to provide the services the community needs when and where they need them—no ifs, no buts, no maybes. It is literally the reason government exists. Make no mistake about it: government has the ability to implement the services that transform our community and people's lives. Most of the time people in decision-making spaces like this one simply choose not to. Programs like Medicare, the NDIS, the PBS and income support provided through JobSeeker have the ability to radically transform the way people are supported and make huge differences in people's lives. Far too often these programs are restricted or legislated in a way that makes them less effective, and that needs to change.</para>
<para>We must extend and defend Medicare so we can return Australia's public health system to a system that is truly public, truly universal and truly world leading. That means making sure people aren't deciding between groceries and going to the GP, making sure we fund dental and mental health care, fully covered within Medicare, and making sure we invest more money in our public healthcare system and pay our nurses what they deserve. We need an NDIS that supports all disabled folks who need it and empowers disabled people to live happy and healthy lives. That means getting rid of these disastrous distinctions that see the elderly and those with psychosocial disabilities excluded. It means properly funding the scheme so that people get the support they need when they need it and so that those supports aren't driven through a lens of simply what costs less.</para>
<para>We can make medications cheaper and more accessible so that people with chronic health conditions aren't put in the position of having to decide between getting the medications they need and facing horrendous circumstances such as bankruptcy or having to go to emergency rooms across the state or across the nation. JobSeeker can be raised—and must be raised—to $88 a day so that folks who need it most have the ability to support themselves and aren't forced to fall below the poverty line. We need to reform and regulate housing so that we can see a reality where people can have the goal of owning their own home. We need to reform the housing system so there is a reality for people in which they are able to live in a home that they are able to afford and where they don't have to choose between bills and food in order to be able to make payments to their landlord. We have seen over decades the building of a so-called market in housing in Australia as the direct result of policies passed through this parliament that see young people unable to afford a home, while the average person in this place, in this parliament, at this time owns two houses. That is a disgrace.</para>
<para>We need to stop opening up new coal and gas plants and move towards renewable energy, because we are living in the midst of a climate crisis that is seeing more and more of our community members and our precious places lost and damaged. Homes should not be the spaces in which the climate crisis acts out its most terrible impacts, yet we are seeing people's homes reduced to ashes and washed away in floods. One-in-a-generation disasters have become one-in-every-year events.</para>
<para>We need to act with the urgency that the moment requires. We could do all this tomorrow. This parliament could pass the laws needed to make these changes. But the reality is that so many in this place simply choose not to. They can find nearly a trillion dollars for tax cuts for the rich and for nuclear submarines but can't seem to make it so that a single mother from Dianella can take her son to the GP without paying out of pocket, sometimes into the hundreds of dollars. This is the status quo that the Labor and Liberal parties want to maintain. Why? Because it works pretty well for them. They get to cruise along, earning their salary and having Woodside and CommBank pay for their campaigns, while the community gets buried. It's a status quo that can change, and the first step is making sure that these people aren't rewarded for their failures in this place.</para>
<para>The community acts together when government won't, and the community has been acting. We've seen the largest peace protests since the Iraq war. We've seen kids leave their classrooms to protest the government's inaction on climate change. We've seen the Labor and Liberal Party vote plummet over the last few decades as constituencies around the country elect people who actually represent them, not corporations. I am more optimistic than I have ever been about where our community is headed, but it is up to all of us to challenge this status quo that for so long has rewarded the wealthy and politicians while leaving so many of the rest of us behind. The Greens will always bring a community voice into this parliament, and we will continue to challenge the systems that punish everyday people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We see many members and senators in this building buy into the class war being waged by big business groups against hardworking Australians. I expect it from most—though not all—of the Liberals and Nationals, because, fundamentally, the vast majority of those opposite are the party of the top one per cent. That is their core constituency. We see it every day in this place. We saw it when the Liberals and Nationals opposed a $1 pay increase for the lowest paid employees in this country. At a time when big business was making record profits, when billionaires were getting richer and richer, they opposed that. The Liberals and Nationals refused to fund a pay increase for aged-care workers. The Liberals and Nationals opposed energy bill relief for middle-class families. The Liberals and Nationals opposed housing affordability measures for working families. And the Liberals and Nationals threatened to vote against cheaper medicines. Of course, their former finance minister said that low wages are a core part of their economic plan.</para>
<para>The truth is that the Liberals and Nationals are not here for working people. That isn't who butters their bread. Many of the Liberals and Nationals are representatives in this place for the big end of town. Big business lobbying groups, like the Business Council and the Minerals Council, pay the Liberal and National parties' bills. Quite often, they get to choose the candidates, too. There's now a pipeline of big business lobbyists and hacks directly into this Liberal-National caucus. Once they're here, they continue the class war on behalf of the top one per cent, against everyone else.</para>
<para>Nowhere is that more obvious than when it comes to workplace reforms. There is a bill before parliament that could have passed this year—the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. That would have given more secure work and higher wages to hundreds of thousands of Australian people. We're talking about a massive improvement to the quality and standard of life for hundreds of thousands of Australian workers and small businesses. Almost 150,000 people working in the gig economy could have access to minimum standards over time. There are 327,000 people working for labour hire companies who could have access to argue for higher rates of pay. Over 200,000 truck drivers, many of whom are small-business operators, would be protected from the deadly race to the bottom in their industry. Millions of Australian workers would have had new protections from being murdered at work by the negligence of their employer or from their wages being stolen. We could pass those measures this year.</para>
<para>We've already had the most comprehensive Senate inquiry into any workplace legislation since the Fair Work Bill itself 15 years ago. I expect the Liberals and Nationals to oppose that, which, of course, they'll do because they don't represent the 14 million Australians who work for a living. They represent the top one per cent, who are leeching off the rest of us, who are undermining good small business—bad businesses who make their money by using loopholes to rip off their staff. Just look who's funding the campaign against this bill. It is being funded almost entirely by the Minerals Council of Australia. That means Gina Rinehart, BHP, Rio Tinto and Glencore—the richest of the rich. They stump up the money, and the Liberals and Nationals come in here and fight the class war on their behalf.</para>
<para>What is very disappointing is when we see members of the crossbench jump on the Liberal and Minerals Council gravy train. Last night Dai Le, the member for Fowler, stood in the House and spoke against large parts of the closing loopholes bill. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The bill takes a radical approach in reforming the Australian workforce …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… … …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If the government seeks to proceed with regulating digital platform work, I'm of the view that it should be confined to the care sector …</para></quote>
<para>That's just incredible. Dai Le, the member for Fowler, wants people who work for Uber, Menulog, DoorDash and other platforms excluded from the bill. Fowler would have amongst the highest number of gig workers in any electorate in Australia, and their local member opposes giving them minimum standards. Her speech came just days after the 15th gig worker died on our roads since 2017. Twelve of those people died in Sydney. But giving them life-saving minimum standards is a bridge too far for the member for Fowler.</para>
<para>The debate on this legislation is really showing us who people are in this building and what they really stand for. The member for Petrie, another hard-working outer-suburban electorate, has opposed a $1 increase for people on the minimum wage, energy bill relief, housing relief—all sorts of measures that would help people in the street. The member for Petrie, one of the conservatives, of course, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I've been in this place for 10 years. Do you know how many people have come into my office who are casual workers, gig workers or subcontractors and said: 'Oh, we need to make all these changes'? Zero, none.</para></quote>
<para>Here we go again. According to those opposite, insecure and unsafe work is just a made up issue. Those 15 gig workers and the hundreds of truck drivers who have been butchered are just putting it on. I'm not surprised that the member for Petrie hasn't met with a single one of the tens of millions of casuals, gig workers or subbies across Australia. I'm sure he's met with plenty of big-business lobbyists and executives. After all, they pay his bills.</para>
<para>Take the member for Flynn, Colin Boyce, another one of the conservatives. His comments are the most disgraceful, given how labour hire and insecure work has destroyed communities in his area. He knows that some coalmines in his seat are majority labour hire and they earn 30, 40 or even 50 per cent less than the site rates. He knows that BHP has set up an internal labour hire company to undercut their own site rates. But he says of the same job, same pay provisions that the bill 'provides too much uncertainty' and 'adds additional costs to businesses'. Can you believe that? He's worried about the additional costs of the richest company in Australia, BHP, due to them having to pay their workers fairly. Everyone in that industry knows that it's a load of nonsense.</para>
<para>Whitehaven have just agreed to buy two BHP coalmines in Central Queensland, one in Mr Boyce's seat and the other in Ms Landry's seat, and they have agreed to pay the site rates rather than the labour hire rates, which are substantially lower. If Whitehaven can afford to do this then we know BHP can. But the member for Flynn and the member for Capricornia oppose same job, same pay. The member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, said the bill adds uncertainty and complexity to the employment of labour hire workers. How do the Nationals members from Central Queensland get up in this place, when they know how labour hire has decimated their communities, and say, 'Please we want to continue, we support what's going on'? They should listen to the actual community leaders. We were in Rockhampton two weeks ago for a hearing on this bill, and the Isaac mayor, Anne Baker, told us:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The consequences in our region of labour hire in particular are far reaching. They affect not just the workers but the entire community. Unfair labour practices have become a dark stain on our landscape. They put people in a vulnerable position. They can't put their roots down in our region. They can't borrow money to purchase their own homes. Really, their future decisions are removed from them because they don't have confidence in a permanent shift.</para></quote>
<para>Labour hire isn't just destroying middle-class wages and jobs; it is destroying the very fabric of communities in Queensland, and it's happening with the full support of the National Party.</para>
<para>While there have been economic thugs like BHP pillaging decent wages and unfairly trampling over smaller businesses, I want to commend Whitehaven for doing what it's doing at Blackwater and Daunia mines. I also want to thank the Australian Hotels Association, the Pharmacy Guild, every gig platform except Mable and the vast majority of employers in the road transport industry. There are many positive employers who want these loopholes closed so that their dodgy competitors who are exploiting workers and gaming the system can rely on innovation and productivity instead of on who can pay their people the least.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dixon Advisory</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to set out some facts in relation to a very curious case indeed in relation to Dixon Advisory, the non-enforcement of the law and the potential for taxpayers to be funding a huge moral hazard in relation to this particular business now and into the future, given the existence of the compensation scheme of last resort. In relation to Dixon Advisory they saw $357 million of losses of money from consumers who had decided to invest in their fund through their advisers. There are now 2,000 AFCA cases before the tribunal in relation to the Dixon matter. In 2020 ASIC started to take some action in relation to Dixon, and by the beginning of 2022 Dixon was in voluntary administration. The core of the issue is the allegation that there was deeply conflicted advice given to retail customers who were invested in New York property funds, and the promoters of the scheme collected huge commissions. The promoters were able to get away with this but inflicted huge losses on consumers because of the conflicted advice whereby the promoters of the scheme, Dixon Advisory, put their own interests ahead of those of their investors, which is against the laws of Australia.</para>
<para>ASIC released a statement in September 2020 setting out that it proposed to take action against Dixon Advisory in relation to conflicts of interest, in relation to contravention of the best interest duty and in relation to the requirement for Dixon to have given appropriate advice. But ASIC only pursued some of those matters in the courts, and then later in 2021 there was a shock to many people who were watching this that ASIC decided to settle for $7.2 million—that's it. That was the end of civil proceedings, for seven million bucks, after there had been losses of over $300 million, and no pursuit of criminal matters. Now, we should not be surprised here, because we're talking about ASIC, an agency that has made fewer referrals to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to criminal matters than the Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority. And over the last five years ASIC has made half as many referrals to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions than they made five years ago, despite a huge increase in resources.</para>
<para>The maximum penalties here—dollars, on a civil basis—could have been well in excess of $100 million, but ASIC decided to pursue and settle for just $7 million. There is a fly in the ointment here. In October this year I asked the ASIC deputy chair about this matter. I said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">ASIC agreed to a $7.2 million fine with Dixon Advisory. Did they pay that fine?</para></quote>
<para>And ASIC's deputy chair said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">No. As I understand it, that fine was not paid. Dixon is in voluntary administration. There was a penalty imposed by the Federal Court of $7.2 million plus $800,000 in costs, but, given that Dixon is in voluntary administration, those amounts are unlikely to be paid.</para></quote>
<para>Let me repeat that: those amounts are unlikely to be paid. So, there's no criminal prosecution. There's no civil process, other than a small fine, which is now not going to be paid.</para>
<para>A further fly in the ointment here is that Dixon Advisory has now phoenixed itself into Evans & Partners, which, according to their recent financial reports, as at June 2023, has 3½ thousand clients that they're advising, up from 3,000 last year, and they are increasing their revenue. In the last year their revenue was $167 million. So, it doesn't sound like the Evans & Partners business and the Dixon Advisory business is short of cash, but apparently they can't even pay their regulatory fine of $7 million—which is only a fraction of what should have been sought through civil penalties if ASIC had been doing its job.</para>
<para>The thing I'm really concerned about here, though, is what is happening behind the scenes. There was a statement from ASIC on 3 August 2022 which said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Former clients of Dixon Advisory and Superannuation Services Pty Limited (in administration, 'Dixon Advisory') may be eligible for compensation under a potential future Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) but they will need to take action as soon as possible.</para></quote>
<para>That's what ASIC said in August last year. Then AFCA put out a similar statement, after the legislation had passed, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Now that legislation has passed to establish a CSLR, we have commenced early work to investigate these complaints and assess if they may be eligible to raise a CSLR claim.</para></quote>
<para>It also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To ensure our case workers can efficiently deal with your complaint, you can start gathering relevant information in preparation for our contact.</para></quote>
<para>This is solely about Dixon Advisory. So, AFCA put out a release just about Dixon Advisory.</para>
<para>Then we get to the budget, in May this year—9 May 2023. Budget Paper No. 1 says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The value of the Australian Government's liabilities under the CSLR is unquantifiable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The collapse of Dixon Advisory and Superannuation Services Pty Ltd may increase the liabilities for the Australian Government.</para></quote>
<para>Now, I can't remember many times when the budget papers have specifically set out one particular organisation that would be part of a new scheme. I should say at this juncture that the idea of the compensation scheme of last resort is a very risky concept, because it introduces the concept of moral hazard, whereby the regulators, in particular, may not be incentivised to enforce the law to protect consumers, because they know there's a great big bucket of taxpayer funds sitting behind them that can come and bail them out if they fail to enforce the law. When you have the worst corporate law enforcement agency in the OECD and the G20 on the case, you're going to need a lot of CSLR remediation, I would predict.</para>
<para>But the curious piece here is: why did ASIC, AFCA and the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, put these statements about Dixon Advisory into their budget papers? It seems very curious indeed. There have been huge losses. Over $300 million of people's money has been lost because of conflicted, bad, illegal advice. There is no law enforcement here—nothing on conflicted advice, nothing on appropriate advice and nothing on conflict of interest. No fine has been collected. The piddling fine of $7 million that ASIC agreed with Dixon—$7 million, after a loss of $300 million—is not even going to be collected. We shouldn't be surprised, because the ASIC inquiry has revealed that the anti-phoenixing laws in Australia are not enforced. What we see here is effectively the phoenixing of Dixon Advisory into Evans and Partners, where we see a profitable ongoing business which somehow doesn't have the ability to pay its fine. Therefore, who's left with the bucket? It's the taxpayer. The taxpayer will now have to fork out and provide reparations to people who lost their money and were not able to be compensated because ASIC didn't do its job.</para>
<para>Why has Dixon been singled out here? That is the question. In all the dreadful financial scandals going back to Storm Financial 10 or 12 years ago, no-one has ever been bailed out. So many consumers have been wronged, by an industry that has too often put itself ahead of its clients' interests but also by a weak, pathetic regulator that has not enforced the law. So the question is: why has Dixon been singled out? We need to know why, and I will be pursuing this.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pauline Hanson's One Nation</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I am often asked by people why life under Labor has become so damn tough so quickly and how a One Nation government would help. Australians are decent people and can see through government and media misinformation and disinformation. We all know when life is harder than it should be and when governments are screwing up. Out of control cost of living has resulted from a screw-up resulting from the actions of Liberal, National, Greens and Labor parties during COVID, when our government turned to the use of excessive authority instead of respecting human rights and choice. During COVID, One Nation did advocate for human rights, including quarantining the sick and letting the healthy get about life. Countries that did that are now back to normal. Life in those countries is easier because there's no massive COVID bill to pay. Australia has a huge inflation problem now due to printing $500 billion—half a trillion dollars—to cover COVID expenses, including JobKeeper and pharma products that are now past their use-by date. Money printing causes inflation. One Nation said so at the time.</para>
<para>One Nation now stands ready to rebuild our economy and deliver wealth and opportunity to all Australians. We will reduce new arrivals to a level where arrivals equal departures. That's called zero net migration, leaving room for about 130,000 new migrants each year. We will limit student visas to a level at which we can accommodate and teach students properly. We will not import more labour until those who've arrived have found a job. We don't need new arrivals being handed Medicare cards, driving up government spending on health and on schools and infrastructure. We will decline to renew the visa of any new arrival who has failed to find a job or make a contribution during their visa period.</para>
<para>We will license construction of new and efficient coal plants, which will bring electricity bills down 50 per cent. We will cancel any weather dependent generation project that we can legally terminate, and we will ensure that wind and solar sponsors pay into a bond account to pay for the removal of those monstrosities at the end of their short life. Electricity generation should be based on the cheapest source, not the dearest, and the dearest is wind and solar. We will fast-track mining approvals and port upgrades. We will terminate the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and leave everyone's water where it is to ensure farmers are free to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world, and we'll then get together with the states to review the actual data on river health, environmental outcomes and the social and economic costs of the basin measures taken so far. More work may need to be done, though only after a full basin review. We will build infrastructure projects like the Queensland tropics water and hydro project, the northern Australia's east-west rail line, the Abbott Point and Pilbara steel parks and the inland rail to the port of Gladstone without crossing the Condamine.</para>
<para>At the moment, Australia's internet traffic from our east coast to Western Australia and vice versa routes through China. So, if you want to connect with Western Australia, it goes through China. We will build a direct connection instead and upgrade pinch points to lift our internet out of Third World status and make it First World. Human error being what it is, the recent Optus failure may happen again. Once there is network redundancy and proper planning, outages should not happen. The Optus failure is on the government's infrastructure and communication ministers, who clearly have not done their job to ensure the redundancy we need to keep Australians connected. And we need to keep cash as a payment option, as should every business. These are just some of the many opportunities for infrastructure to harden our economy and provide wealth and opportunity for all.</para>
<para>Infrastructure improves economic efficiency and underscores the productivity improvements that fuel wage rises. Workers don't need to work harder to get a productivity rise. People are already at breaking point. Government needs to work harder—faster internet, faster ports and rail, better highways, cheaper power and more water. This is how we increase productivity and, with that, the wages of everyday Australians, without inflation. We will purchase the Suncorp Bank and operate that as a model bank to provide a full range of services, including cash through Australia Post outlets. Under One Nation you will have a real local bank branch that handles cash.</para>
<para>We will stop foreign interests owning Australian land and residential property. The bounty of this beautiful land should accrue to those who call Australia home. Large corporations need to be held to account. For 30 years the share of the economy coming from wages has fallen, yet for 30 years the share from corporate profits has grown. There's a point where a fair return on risk and investment has become a perceived entitlement to ever-increasing profits from rapacious and unprincipled merchant banks investing money on behalf of predatory billionaires, billionaires like Bill Gates, who we discovered just after the election is best mates with the Prime Minister.</para>
<para>In response to running out of other people's money to spend, the Treasurer, in a recent media appearance, walked back his responsibility to harden and grow the national economy. One Nation does not shirk from responsibility. Join us in restoring our country for people to abound and flourish.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government: Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always interesting to follow Senator Roberts and his manifesto. From one manifesto to another, I want to talk today about the Albanese government's measures that we have put in place to deal with the cost of living. The Albanese government has its eyes fixed firmly on our No. 1 priority, which is tackling the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing right now. We've crafted a comprehensive $23 billion 10-point plan, and I want to take a few minutes to unpack some of these key measures that we're putting in place to alleviate the pressures on Australians.</para>
<para>Firstly, we have delivered electricity bill relief. We are committed to providing relief, making sure Australians can turn the lights on or power the air con knowing that relief is there. Unfortunately, those opposite from the Liberal and National parties voted against these measures.</para>
<para>We've also delivered cheaper child care, giving our youngest Australians the best start in life and giving parents the flexibility to return to work or to work more if they choose. The evidence shows that fees would have been 13 per cent higher if it were not for these measures that we've put in place.</para>
<para>We've also increased rent assistance, because we know housing is particularly important for Australians and that assistance can make all the difference. But those opposite, unfortunately, voted against our bill to introduce the housing future fund to deliver more social and affordable housing to this country.</para>
<para>When it comes to health, just a few weeks ago the largest investment in Medicare's 40-year history started, when we increased the bulk billing payments of GPs, making seeing a doctor more accessible and affordable for all Australians. We're also making medicines cheaper and more accessible to those Australians who need it most. Disgracefully, this was another measure opposed by the LNP, so much so that they actually voted against it six times in the Senate. We've also boosted income support payments, ensuring that no-one is left behind in these tough times.</para>
<para>After the cuts and neglect under the LNP, we are finally restoring TAFE. We believe in investing in education, and that's why we're delivering fee-free TAFE. Building a skilled workforce doesn't just support people now but helps us build our future.</para>
<para>Speaking of the future, we're not just addressing the challenges of today; we're laying the foundations of tomorrow. Affordable homes are crucial, and our government is hard at work to build more of them because, after a lost decade for housing in this country, there is a lot more work to do. We're expanding paid parental leave to make it fairer and easier for Australians to start and grow their families, and the Albanese Labor government is creating jobs and getting wages moving again, because finally, after a decade, Australians have a government that is working for them and getting wages moving and doesn't see low wage growth as a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture. Unfortunately, when it comes to those opposite and the minimum wage case, you had a government arguing to keep wages lower. Well, that's not what our government did when it came to arguing for a minimum wage rise for the lowest-paid workers in this country. We argued that wages should keep up with the cost of living.</para>
<para>We have not lost sight of our primary focus, which is cost of living, wages, jobs and the economy. In fact, we've achieved some significant milestones during this difficult time. We've delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years, witnessed wages growing at their fastest rate in a decade and created 561,000 jobs since taking office, a record for any new government. Our commitment extends beyond just addressing the immediate concerns. We're making investments in the future of Australia. We're making investments in manufacturing, in the future of our care economy and in infrastructure and transport. We are working for Australia on multiple fronts, and our 10-point plan is a testament to that. We understand the challenges that Australians face, and we're not just talking about it or complaining about it as those over there are doing. What we're doing is implementing concrete actions to ensure a better, more affordable future for all Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environmental Approvals</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I rise to draw the Senate's attention to a very important issue. It's an issue of Australia's economic prosperity and, indeed, our security, and it is in relation to environmental approvals. The Albanese government's proposed alterations to environmental protection laws are raising serious concerns within industry. They're jeopardising billions of dollars in future investments and tens of thousands of jobs in Western Australia's critical minerals and broader resources sector. I want to draw your attention to an excellent opinion piece that was published in today's <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline>, written by Senator Susan McDonald, the shadow resources minister. It was a fantastic piece, and I just want to quote one particular sentence from it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Federal Labor Government has showered the Environmental Defender's Office—an activist legal organisation dedicated to undermining our to undermining our resources sector in the courts—with millions in funding.</para></quote>
<para>Western Australia holds a distinct advantage in seizing significant global economic opportunities. Our abundant natural resources open an opportunity for us to potentially excel in essential industries such as LNG, carbon capture, renewable energy, critical minerals and hydrogen, along with fisheries and agriculture. WA's competitive edge extends to its status as a cost-effective energy hub, playing a pivotal role in unlocking emerging prospects like downstream processing and advanced manufacturing. Additionally we're at the forefront of initiatives to bolster the national space and defence industries.</para>
<para>A report by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia revealed that more than $318 billion of investment projects in the state are awaiting environmental approval. The report suggests that a substantial portion of these projects may face even more delays or will have to be downsized due to federal environmental reforms. If that doesn't send shivers up your spine then I don't know what will, because, as I said when I started, this affects the economic prosperity and, indeed, security of this nation.</para>
<para>The coalition more than welcomes any investment into the resource sector. The government ought to show unwavering commitment to critical minerals, recognising that this industry, particularly in Western Australia, has been instrumental in steering our nation through numerous challenges and providing a stronger economy and even more jobs. However, the hard work of these industries will count for nothing if projects get tied up in years of green tape. As the CCIWA chief economist, Aaron Moray, has rightly said, it will be all dressed up with nowhere to go.</para>
<para>Despite the Albanese government's efforts to stimulate investment in critical minerals through $2 billion in taxpayer funded loans and guarantees, it is all for nothing, as CCIWA emphasises, if these initiatives have limited impact without efficient and reasonable environmental approvals in place. The CCIWA report says, and it's clearly identified, that more money invested in the industry will not bolster the economy, as the issue is not funding. The issue is the excessive number of environmental approvals already in place that are holding back economic growth plus the additional hoops being introduced through the new Environmental Protection Agency; reforms to the EPA and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act; and, potentially, the cultural heritage laws that Minister Plibersek wants to bring in.</para>
<para>The Australian people do not want more bureaucracy—green tape or red tape—and that has been made clear in Western Australia. We saw that through their strong opposition to the WA Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. But we've got to see reforms. Given the significant implications of the government's plans, it is crucial for the government to decelerate the reforms process it is working on and ensure that there is ample time for industry to thoroughly examine the proposals and offer their input.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Homelessness</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Youth homelessness is a growing problem in Australia. The wider context is that homelessness across all age groups has been continuing to rise ahead of overall population growth. Here in the ACT the average monthly number of people being assisted by service providers is up 21 per cent over the last five years. The ACT has, shamefully, the second-largest increase in Australia over this period. Only Queensland has seen a more alarming increase. Last year, the average number of people being helped by homelessness services each month in the ACT was 1,972, up from 1,629 five years ago. A quarter of these are young people. The latest figures show that 405 young people well being helped by homelessness service agencies in Canberra in June 2023, up from 375 five years earlier.</para>
<para>A couple of months ago I visited PCYC, out near Canberra airport. They are doing amazing work with young people, helping them to get back into school and providing them with the support they need. At the end of spending time with the various groups in their programs, we sat around. One of the facilitators said, 'We've got a senator here. What would you like to ask him to do?' One of the kids put his hand up and said, 'I'd like to ask him for youth homelessness services in the ACT.' It's a very sobering thing to be asked that by a teenager, and it's a question that needs to be met with action from government, from leaders.</para>
<para>There are far too many children falling through the cracks at the moment. While some are able to access out-of-home care systems, others aren't, because at the same time that we are facing an acute shortage of social and affordable housing we are facing an acute shortage of foster carers. The stark reality for these children is, if they aren't with a foster carer by age 12, they likely never will be. Instead, they are forced to navigate the homelessness system without a guardian, without so much as a Medicare card. The system in its current form sends a message to children that they are worthless. The crisis of child and youth homelessness in Australia is getting worse. The government's National Housing and Homelessness Plan needs to give specific attention to homeless young people. It must address this issue.</para>
<para>Along with crossbench colleagues in the Senate, I will continue to press the government to raise Australia's game on housing and homelessness. This must include time-specific homelessness reduction targets agreed between the Commonwealth and states and territories. Ending child and youth homelessness needs to be part of an ambition to tackle the wider problem of homelessness head-on. This is a problem that has continued to escalate, and this is a shameful story that we, as one of the richest countries in the world, cannot allow to continue. We can afford to invest in our communities. We can ensure that young people in Canberra have somewhere to go that is safe to spend the night and that we don't have young people sleeping rough in Glebe Park or other parts of Civic. I am calling on the federal government to step up in this area. We've got the National Housing and Homelessness Plan coming up. It has to be addressed in there. It has to be addressed. We need a specific mention of it and a plan to ensure that this is addressed in Australia.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environmental, Social and Governance</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I'd like to talk about ESG. When companies talk about ESG, consumers and shareholders should walk away as quickly as possible. That's because ESG is code for something: 'wasting company money on elitist woke agendas that have nothing to do with producing value for shareholders'. ESG stands for environmental, social and governance. The idea is that, instead of making the best product possible or providing the best service at the lowest possible cost for the maximum amount of return for shareholders, money instead gets wasted on woke environmental, social or corporate governance gestures. A perfect example is the failed Voice to Parliament referendum. Many of Australia's biggest companies backed the Voice, including the big four banks, Westpac, Commonwealth, NAB and ANZ; the major resource companies, BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside and Origin; Qantas, which put Yes23 logos on its planes; and Telstra, which donated generously to the campaign. Sport is also big business in Australia. We all know that. We had the AFL, the NRL, Rugby Australia, Football Australia, Netball Australia, Tennis Australia and Cricket Australia also backing the Voice. The CEOs and boards of all these companies didn't even bother to find out whether the Australian people or, more importantly, their shareholders thought the Voice was a good idea. They just spent shareholder money anyway.</para>
<para>Spending company money in this way is fundamentally wrong. Why should the woke elites on the boards of these companies get such an outsized influence on the future of our nation? If these boards had any integrity at all, which they don't, they would dip into their own pockets to virtue-signal. But don't hold your breath. Corporates, just like big governments, prefer to spend other people's money rather than their own. They're always happy to spend investors' money while giving themselves a pat on the back and collecting a hefty bonus cheque each year. The best way that companies can contribute to society is by making the goods and services that we need at the lowest possible cost. How about that instead? Then each of us can go and spend our own money to contribute to the causes and charities of our choice, to make the world a better place as we see fit. It is not the job of companies to spend shareholder money on woke ideology. It is the job of companies to make money for their shareholders—nothing more. I thought that was common sense, but I guess it's not.</para>
<para>ESG, like most virtuous and antidemocratic initiatives, started out as a voluntary commitment. We know that it will not end there. Do you recall the voluntary COVID vaccine? We know how that ended. Laws may eventually be proposed that will enforce ESG requirements on Australian businesses. ESG is another tool in the kitbag of all sorts of activists, like the climate alarmists who blindly and irrationally push the unachievable and, frankly, mad agenda of net zero. An example of ESG gone mad is this: the big banks are refusing to lend money for projects that are not aligned with their ESG agenda, like coal and gas projects, or they are dictating to farmers how they can and can't use their land. That's what they're doing right now as criteria for getting finance.</para>
<para>ESG is an attack on our way of life, and it's a way for unelected globalist organisations, like Blackrock and Vanguard and all the rest, to go around the government and push their own agenda. Ultimately, it's about control. ESG is about control. We know that our Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, intends to remake capitalism. That's what he said. Well, Treasurer, capitalism can soon become communism when you throw in just a bit of ESG on the top. The only problem with communism is that it results in centralised power, poverty and starvation for the masses—not the elite; they'll be just fine. Everyday Australians can see through the ESG agenda. We can see how ESG is nothing less than a wealth transfer to the global elites. Forget your ESG dream, it is time to deregulate, remove legislative barriers, reduce taxation and inspire a generation of Australian entrepreneurs. Virtue doesn't pay the bills. Virtue won't save our nation. The only way to do that is through hard work and less government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Endometriosis</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Endometriosis is a debilitating and painful condition that affects at least one in nine women and girls and those assigned female at birth. For women aged between 44 and 49 that figure increases to one in seven. Endometriosis is complicated by the fact that it's difficult to diagnose—on average taking seven years and often taking as long as 15 years. New research shows that one in two Australian women experience pelvic pain which can be debilitating, yet, despite significant impacts on quality of life, only about half discuss their symptoms with their doctor. I am somewhat embarrassed to acknowledge that for too long the women of Tasmania have had to foot the cost of travel to the mainland to receive basic reproductive health care. But there is some good news at last.</para>
<para>In the 2022-23 budget, the Albanese government committed $58 million for a suite of endometriosis support measures to be rolled out nationally. Recently, along with my colleague Senator Katy Gallagher and Tasmanian state member for Clark, Ella Haddad, I had the pleasure of attending the endometriosis and pelvic pain GP clinic at Family Planning Tasmania. Family Planning Tasmania is a wonderful establishment, run very ably by Lalla Mackenzie. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Lalla and all the staff at Family Planning Tasmania and Dr Craig White, the chair of the board, for hosting us on this day. Including the Hobart clinic, a total of 22 clinics will be established around the country, bringing much-needed medical care and attention to this debilitating condition. Two further clinics in the north of Tasmania, one in Burnie and one in Launceston, will also soon be operational. Together with the clinic currently open in Hobart, Tasmanians will have unprecedented access to reproductive health care, with faster diagnosis and faster access to effective management strategies.</para>
<para>I'm really proud to be part of a government that is committed not only to improving the reproductive health care of all Australian women but also to creating a better standard of health care for all Tasmanians. They're doing this by investing in services that support women. I would like to take this opportunity also to thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, and the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, who have been doing amazing work in this area. When I was young, endometriosis was something that was whispered even when it was finally diagnosed. It wasn't talked about. I think it's really important that we are able to talk about it. I think a lot of young girls, in particular, are even embarrassed by it. There's an expectation from quite a lot of people that women suffer from period pain, and it's important that we acknowledge that it's not just a few little cramps; it can actually affect people's whole lives. They can have to stay in bed for days on end through the pain. It can affect their jobs and education. It's an important topic, and I'm pleased to have been able to speak about it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We'll now move to senators' two-minute statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tertiary Education</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Reports that the Albanese government will delay the release of the Universities Accord final report until at least February next year are further evidence that Minister Clare's higher education reform agenda is running off the rails. While the government created very high expectations, so far its delivery of reform has been woeful. Where is the review of the antiquated HECS debt loan scheme that the minister promised, after being pressured to do so? We are still waiting for documents about this review that the Senate ordered to be produced last Friday. The minister only has excuses for failing to provide these documents as he was required to do through his department many weeks ago.</para>
<para>Because of Labor's sky-high inflation rate, HECS debts have gone up another 7.1 per cent this year. HECS debts are skyrocketing, and Prime Minister Albanese and his hapless government are sitting on their hands, with no solution. The best the government has come up with so far is a new full-fee loan scheme, the startup year loan, which charges students for courses they can currently do for nothing. What a disaster that is. In the wake of so much concern about not putting students first, including in relation to student safety on campus, we now see that the support-for-students policy that the government promised after it abolished the coalition's 50 per cent pass rule is in disarray. There's been no consultation. This policy has turned into a complete mess. The government is now going back to the drawing board, and higher education providers are absolutely up in arms, with just weeks to go before that policy is meant to be introduced. This is a government which is failing to put students first and is leaving a regulatory mess in its wake.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>O'NEILL () (): I'm going to put on the record a speech by Deena Clemson, from my duty electorate of Lyne, which I'm reading as part of the Raise Our Voice Australia campaign. Congratulations, Deena.</para>
<quote><para class="block">Imagine this: gardens on the rooftops of every building, a fresh breeze blowing against your face while you move through the shadows cast by overhanging trees and a feeling of connection with yourself and with the planet—a clean, green society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My name is Deena Clemson, I'm 14 years old and I live in the Lyne electorate, on the land of the Warrimay people. A sustainable lifestyle, living in harmony with both yourself and the planet, being able to understand and care for the magnificent potential that this planet holds—this is the future I'm fighting for. We have a colossal impact on the planet, which has detrimental repercussions on everyone. One change that Australia should make to become a better place for future generations is simply understanding and implementing a sustainable lifestyle—small changes made in everyone's lives, like composting, buying locally, recycling and changing to LED light bulbs. Vincent van Gogh said, 'Great things are done by a series of small things brought together.' If we all make small changes, we can make a huge difference.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But how does Australia get there? The Australian government needs to provide an education on how to properly recycle and live in harmony with the planet. They need to lead by example. So, if you take one thing away from this today, I ask you to remember this: let's learn—learn to implement, learn to share and learn to preserve.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I'm reading out a speech from Senuthi Jayasinghe, a young person from Marryatville High School in the electorate of Sturt in my state of South Australia. This is part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, which amplifies the voices of young people and their visions for the future. The speech is titled 'A simpler solution to Australia's gambling problem'.</para>
<quote><para class="block">A gambler is someone who relies on false hope to make a living. It's already 2023, and Australia has still found itself with the highest per capita gambling loss.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">More than 30,000 citizens throughout Australia are becoming dependent on gambling, with countless others teetering on the edge. With slot machines on every corner, more than half the world's slot machines are located here in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The persistence of this gambling epidemic is due to the lack of education, support, and discouragement from the government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is crucial for the government to implement stricter regulations, provide more resources for addiction support, and educate the public about the dangers of gambling addiction.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Only through these measures can we hope to address the underlying causes of the problem and assist those affected by it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The government should also consider implementing stricter advertising regulations to prevent the glamorization of gambling and reduce its accessibility.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Additionally, establishing a national helpline and support network for gambling addiction would offer much-needed assistance to those grappling with this issue.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">By taking these steps, Australia can work towards reducing the prevalence of gambling addiction and promoting a healthier society.</para></quote>
<para>The Greens echo these solutions. We call for a regulator and a ban on gambling advertising and political donations from the industry. Thank you, Senuthi, for this wonderful speech drawing our attention to such an important and systemic issue affecting the lives of so many Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was only yesterday that I was here in this chamber remarking on the complete and utter dereliction of responsibility of this government in relation to the safety and security of Australians—of Western Australians, as it turns out—by releasing 80 and possibly well over 300 people who had their visas denied and were in detention because they had not met character grounds here in Australia. They include murderers, rapists, serious criminals and, I understand, terrorists as well.</para>
<para>This is not a new issue. The government had plenty of warning, and yet the Minister for Home Affairs and the Attorney-General were asleep at the wheel—except for the immigration minister, who managed to unfurl the red carpet and release them without even waiting for the High Court's decision. He unfurled the red carpet, organised plane tickets and released over 30 people in Western Australia. We had all of these promises and guarantees that they were going to be secure and Western Australians would be safe. But good on the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline>! They went to the motel on the outskirts of Perth to see the great security around these former detainees. And, sure enough, there was not a policeman, a guard or anything. In fact, within a couple of hours they'd managed to source a car and were driving around Perth doing drugs and God knows whatever else. So much for this government's ability to keep Australians safe! Shame on you. All Western Australians should be so angry at what you have failed to do. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Raise Our Voice campaign amplifies the powerful voices of young Australians within the chambers of parliament. Today I'll be using my voice on behalf of Kristen Kantzipas. Kristen is a young Victorian concerned about the rising rates of depression among young Australians. Here are her words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm thirteen—Another notification on my phone.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I tried my hardest to ignore it, but being a phone-obsessed teenager, of course I checked it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But thank goodness I did. It was one of my close friends.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">She had sent me the longest paragraph I have ever seen over text message.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As I read through it, I was shocked.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">She was telling me about how lost she felt in life and how she didn't know where to go.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It confused me for a while, because she always seemed so happy around me and my group.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But from what I had read in one conversation, it was clear to see she wasn't.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 in 4 people under the age of 20 suffer from depression.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My idea to prevent this is for the government to set up free hubs around Australia. A hub for all teenagers to go to when they are feeling stressed or depressed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Let's help our teenagers be happier, enhance their wellbeing, so Australia can be a safe place to all.</para></quote>
<para>Those are her words, and I am proud to have helped raise Kristen's voice today, because her words shed a light on an invisible battle that affects countless young Australians. I hope Kristen continues to use her voice to fight for what she believes in and to help create a better Australia. Thank you, Kristen.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to give you an insight into future Australia under Labor, the Greens and the coalition—well, those that don't have a backbone, anyway. You will toil much longer for less and eventually for nothing, just like they did in the old Soviet Union under Joe Stalin. You will be confined to your suburb or country town, unable to move beyond its boundaries, because that will emit too much greenhouse gas. There will be no getting around it, because all of your biometric data will be used to keep you in check. May I suggest you don't put off that visit to the relatives overseas, even though our tanking dollar will make it an expensive exercise?</para>
<para>Say goodbye to your steak dinner and the Sunday lamb roast and prepare your taste buds for a diet of bugs and worms mixed with your feed-grade lentil mash. Forget about cash. How dare you even think to make a transaction that won't be monitored and need approval. Forget about the necessity of reliable, on-call energy. Like they do in Third World Africa and even in northern Queensland, you will buy your electricity ration ahead of time. Those smart meters you've installed will ensure you can only use it when the government lets you.</para>
<para>The same will apply to your fresh water and home or property ownership. Abandon that great Australian dream because, as Klaus Schwab tells us, you will own nothing and you'll be happy. You'll be happy because your government says so, and woe to the poor Aussie who dares to say they're not while under misinformation laws. Welcome to the future, Australia, coming much sooner than you think, courtesy of your own government—unless, of course, you're super-rich.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about bushfires. Obviously, they are of great concern to me, as I come from regional Western Australia and my family has been involved in farming for well over 150 years in Western Australia. It's important to keep these things in perspective. I was having a look through—there have been a number of royal commissions into bushfires, but this particular one dates to the 1960s. it goes through the history of bushfire regulation in Western Australia. When some in this place seek to politicise bushfires for their own ends, I think they should reflect on the reality of the situation, particularly in my home state.</para>
<para>The first bushfires legislation in Western Australia actually passed in 1847, before Australia even became a nation. It outlawed the lighting of fires between 1 September and 1 April the following year. That was later updated to 1 October, and that lasted well into the 1960s. Western Australia has always been highly at risk of bushfires, and that has been known for a very long time. What has changed is that we've had extraordinary growth in peri-urban areas; a lack of land management, largely based around the destruction of the forest industry in Western Australia; and a disincentive on private property owners—in fact, overregulation of their ability and right to burn to protect. That is a very important point We can't be thinking that technology can solve this problem through bigger aerial bombers. We need to take prevention measures every day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kaleidoscope World of Fashion</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month I had the pleasure of meeting the Creative Director of Kaleidoscope World of Fashion, Astrid Tshidibu. Kaleidoscope is a forward-thinking brand that dismantles barriers, fuels imagination and embodies the true essence of diversity and inclusivity. Fashion can be a powerful means of self-expression that speaks to our identities, cultures and aspirations. As a senator for Western Australia, it brings me great pride to witness Kaleidoscope pushing the boundaries of creativity while embracing the importance of representation in creative spaces.</para>
<para>Australia is a mosaic of cultures, experiences and narratives waiting to be shared. Kaleidoscope provide the canvas on which these stories come to life. On 28 November, Kaleidoscope will hold their annual fashion show. I encourage everyone to attend the show and support the local Western Australian artists who will be exhibiting their work. I note, having gone to it last year, that it will be an amazing event. The joy and excitement were palpable. While this year I will be in this place, I will be there in spirit. I wish everyone all the very best for this wonderful event.</para>
<para>Growing up in Perth's northern suburbs I felt as Australian as anyone, but I didn't feel represented by the mainstream fashion industry. The faces on magazines did not look like mine, and their voices didn't speak to me and my experiences. Organisations like Kaleidoscope, which celebrates the beauty of diversity and inclusivity, not only inspire creatives all over Australia but make people from diverse backgrounds feel seen and represented. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gas Industry</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The following statement is from Antonia Burke, a traditional owner from the Tiwi Islands:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Since we found out about Santos's Barossa Gas Project and how it extends to Darwin's Middle Arm and Bayu Undan in Timor waters, it has been an absolute nightmare watching how traditional owners are treated by this system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The scariest thing is that the people we vote to run this country are the ones condoning it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Traditional owners don't find out about what's happening in their backyards until after the leases are sold off, the sea has been blasted by seismic testing, appraisal wells are drilled, environmental plans are already approved by NOPSEMA for fossil fuel companies like Santos and Woodside, banks and super funds have already signed off multibillion dollar loans and investments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In our experience, the consultation process has been absolutely atrocious, negligent and disrespectful. And when we voice our concern to our own Chief Minister and other MPs we get bullied and told we are trolls and are puppets for the environmental movement. It's outright patronising.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Anthropologists are paid to lie and omit the truth about Indigenous Cultural Heritage. They completely ignore and contradict what we say and write reports to say "nothing to see here, no cultural heritage exists", even when we say we have burial grounds, sacred sites and a culture to protect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I've witnessed firsthand all of the work getting dumped on traditional owners to keep Santos and others, like Woodside, accountable to the law and the regulations. Why are we responsible for doing the government's job?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have human rights, and these rights are being ignored by the government, banks and super funds, international investors and fossil fuel companies destroying our homes and our rights to protect our ancient cultural practices, beliefs and songlines.</para></quote>
<para>In this place we should do better.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fatherhood</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month the Department of Social Services announced something. It had allocated $3.5 million to help combat what it calls harmful gender stereotypes. We know what that means. It's code for: 'The government wants to create a generation of soy boys.' That's what it's about. Let me save the Albanese government a few million dollars and a great deal of time with just one word: fathers. If the question is how to raise well-adjusted young men, the answer is 'fathers'. If the government is eager, as it should be, to create an environment in which boys grow up to be upstanding members of the community then the government should do all it can to support men in caring for their families. Our culture consistently, all the time, devalues fathers, but our own instincts, not to mention numerous studies, attest to the importance of men in raising healthy children.</para>
<para>Fathers are more than just second adults in the home. As well as bringing protection and economic benefits, fathers bring a different parenting style. Men and women are different—different!—including in the way in which they parent. It might not be politically correct to say so, but fathers are essential in raising healthy young men. I'm so thankful for what my dad did for me—the sacrifices that he made; the long hours at work, giving up part of his life—so that I could stand in this place today as a senator. Rather than demonising men, rather than, as a culture, making life difficult for fathers, we should support, honour and champion fathers for all the work that they do. Make men masculine and great again!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very concerned that there are a number of superannuation funds that are not acting in the best interests of their members, the workers of Australia. I'm very concerned that there have been 1,400 complaints to the Financial Complaints Authority in the last year about group life insurance, where people are making insurance claims that they are entitled to make and the super funds are not releasing their money. This is happening at the most vulnerable moment in people's lives, when they've lost a loved one, and their superannuation fund is sticking to their script of always putting the interests of the super fund and its constituent banks and unions ahead of the interests of the individual worker.</para>
<para>There are some very touching stories that have been profiled in recent times. Mr John Bothman in Tasmania is a member of Aware Super. After many months of paperwork and after having been asked to get a second death certificate—a second death certificate—for his late wife, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I just want to get this finalised and just get on with my life … it's been devastating.</para></quote>
<para>Another Australian, Mrs Carolyn Hocking, lost her husband, Alan, to a heart attack, and the super fund, Cbus, made her wait months and months, including months without a response. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My house is just about falling apart and I'm just waiting for this money.</para></quote>
<para>Fifteen months after her husband's death, she finally received the insurance money.</para>
<para>This is not good enough, and it's not good enough for the government just to say, 'It's a problem for the regulator.' People have paid these insurance premiums, and they deserve to have this money at their most vulnerable and neediest time. I'm calling on the government to do a better job here and look after all Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Small pharmacies in rural areas have been feeling the pinch since the government 's 60-day prescription policy began. I support 60-day prescriptions. What I don't support is slashing money from pharmacies to make that happen. We could have found a better way, and that's why I pushed so hard earlier this year for the government to find a better solution. The government say they're making sure that pharmacies aren't worse off through the availability of two payments, though: the regional pharmacy transition allowance and the regional pharmacy maintenance allowance. Sounds good in theory. But these funds aren't actually helping small pharmacies who need it the most.</para>
<para>Railton Pharmacy is being hit by the reduction in scripts and foot traffic. The amazing Judy, who runs this pharmacy, needs to diversify her income stream to stay afloat for the community. They applied for the regional pharmacy transition allowance on the advice of the health department. Guess what? They were rejected. Why? Because Railton Pharmacy doesn't dispense enough scripts. Pharmacies in remote areas dispensing fewer than 45,000 scripts will get nothing from this new fund right now. Railton's population isn't big enough. The criteria change each year, so they might be eligible in 2024 or 2025. That's if they're still around.</para>
<para>The health minister will say this is okay because these pharmacies just got an increase from the regional pharmacy maintenance allowance. For pharmacies like Judy's, that's an increase of about 20 grand. Pharmacies aren't going to say no to an extra 20 grand in their pocket either. But, when the Railton Pharmacy is taking a $60,000 hit from the 60-day dispensing, the numbers don't add up. Judy just wants to help people in her community, but she says it's like being given a drop of water and being told to prepare for the drought. The minister says the government is doing enough to help small pharmacies through these major changes. But, for people like Judy at Railton Pharmacy, it doesn't even scratch the surface.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Safety: Engineered Stone Industry</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I joined a number of members of the Senate and lower house crossbench calling on Minister Burke and state and territory ministers to ban the import and sale of engineered stone. Safe Work Australia provided their decision regulation impact statement to these ministers in August. The ministers then met in October. We haven't seen this implemented. We've seen moves flagged in the ACT, New South Wales and South Australia but no concrete action.</para>
<para>We need Minister Burke and state and territory ministers to step up to save lives. The evidence is clear: Safe Work Australia were clear this needs to be banned, and I call on the ministers to act for the workers out there who need this protection. We shouldn't have to rely on the crossbench to push the government to act on this. Evidence is clear, Safe Work Australia were unequivocal in their evidence that this needs to be banned. We need this now, and it's time for the Labor government to act on this. I would urge them to lead, at a federal level, with an import ban and work with state and territory ministers to ensure that there are regulations and laws at a state and territory level to protect stonemasons and tradies who are currently working with engineered stone.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Breakfast Club</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We held two excellent breakfast events this week at Parliament House, and we all know that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. We had the National Prayer Breakfast on Monday, co-hosted by the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, and the breakfast club this morning, held by the National School Chaplains Association and the Parliamentary Friends of School Chaplaincy. I want to thank all those who were involved in organising both of these events, and a big thank you to everyone that attended. The National Prayer Breakfast sold out a week in advance with more than 500 guests attending, making it one of the largest events in this building. The event has gone from strength to strength, and that is due to the hard work and dedication of our parliamentary chaplain, Leon Hribar, and our organising committee, all of whom are volunteers. Thank you all very much indeed for your contributions.</para>
<para>I also want to thank our keynote speakers this year at the National Prayer Breakfast, Danny and Leila Abdallah, who shared their very, very powerful testimony on forgiveness and grace in the face of terrible loss and grief. It was a timely reminder for all of us in these turbulent times of what the Bible says in Colossians 3:13: 'Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.' I'm sure that everyone knows the Abdallahs' story, and for them to come to that place of forgiveness is truly one of the most remarkable things you could ever see. If you don't know their story, I'd encourage you to learn about their story.</para>
<para>I'm also proud to support the work of the National School Chaplaincy Association. School chaplains are absolutely critical as a much-needed source of holistic pastoral care for some of our most vulnerable student cohorts. I thank them for hosting a wonderful breakfast club event here this morning. They provided toasties and juice boxes, and all colleagues got a box of 'chaplaincy crunch', which I'm sure you enjoyed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Raise Our Voice Australia</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to read a speech from Mikalya Bolkus who lives in my home state of South Australia and who participated in the Raise Our Voice campaign. Here are Mikalya's words:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I graduated high school with the ability to solve algebraic equations, craft poems and draw circles with a compass … while I acknowledge the value of these skills, they felt utterly useless when I stood stranded on the roadside with a flat tire.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian education system, though commendable, falls short of its potential. Envision an Australia where graduating young adults are not only full of academic knowledge but also practical life skills. Envision young Australians leaving school knowing how to do a tax return or an invoice or having the ability to administer first aid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Young Australians should be educated about their rights as young workers. The current education system assumes parents will fill the gaps… but this expectation does not hold as a reality for most.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Here's my proposal: a subject in high school were subjects and life skills, and where they encounter challenges the world may present. This course would ensure students leave school with not just knowledge but independence. This course will fill the gap for children who didn't have a parent to teach them the importance of a firm handshake. Because it's all well and good to be able to craft a poem but if you cannot change your tire or at least know who to call … you can't keep moving forward.</para></quote>
<para>Well done, Mikalya, on your speech. I'm very proud to read it to the Senate today.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Marielle Smith. There are 34 seconds remaining, if anyone wants to take them.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I'll take these 23 seconds to list the achievements of the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Lost for words!</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that interjections are disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. You said in question time yesterday that, as people are being released, visa conditions are being applied to bridging visas for those people. Sorry; let me correct that to benefit Senator Wong. I've not correctly ascribed that quote to you. Your quote in question time yesterday was that individuals required to be released as a result of this decision by the High Court have been subject to a range of strict and mandatory visa conditions. My apologies.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised—I'm just trying to see; I've been told it's page 3—all individuals who have been released as a result of the High Court's decision have been granted bridging (removal pending) visas with appropriate conditions, and law enforcement agencies have been notified of their release. I'm not sure if that is precisely what the senator is referring to, but that's the advice I have. I have seen some of the media reports. Obviously, these are decisions which have to be made, reflecting the High Court decision on the need to release—notwithstanding the government's different submissions to the High Court—and the framework around the minister's consideration of the application of the visa and its conditions.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Paterson, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, the ABC has reported today:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Some of the detainees released from immigration detention were sent into the community without visas, a revelation that appears to contradict what the federal government has said in recent days.</para></quote>
<para>Have people been released into the community without visas? Or, as you have told this chamber, were they released on visas with strict conditions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will take it on notice to get from Minister Giles a better explanation for you. I understand that there is a technical requirement to release and then for the visa conditions to be imposed, but let me obtain clearer advice from the minister and respond to you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If visas have now been granted to these people, what are the consequences if they breach the conditions of those visas? Is it the case that breaching a visa requires that they be detained pending deportation, which the High Court has ruled is not applicable for this cohort?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I was asked a similar question yesterday—it might have been from Senator Cash or someone else—about the legal remedies available to government in the circumstances where visa conditions are breached or are not met. I am advised that this is one of the consequences of this decision of the High Court, and I can indicate to the chamber that the government intends to introduce legislation shortly to further respond to the decision of the High Court, and we look forward to the opposition's support in that regard.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wages</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Under the Albanese government, today's wage price index has recorded the highest quarterly increase in its 26 year history, along with an upward revision to wage growth in the previous quarter. Can the minister explain how the Albanese government has supported getting wages moving again?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge Senator Walsh's long career in ensuring that particularly those on lower incomes get appropriate wage increases for the important work that they do. We said we'd get wages moving again, and we are. Under this government, wages are growing at their fastest rate in a decade. Today's data showed that the wage price index rose 1.3 per cent in the September quarter 2023 and four per cent for the year. This is the fastest quarterly growth in the 26-year history of the wage price index, and the fastest annual growth since 2009, when Labor was last in government. While quarterly figures can be volatile, we have also seen real wages growth for the last two quarters.</para>
<para>This government will always support Australian workers getting a pay rise, which is why we helped secure a pay rise for minimum-wage workers last year, despite the scare campaign of those opposite. It's why we supported a wage rise for aged-care workers. It's why we're supporting sustainable wages growth through our productivity-enhancing investments, including in skills and training. It's also why last year the government passed the secure jobs, better pay legislation—to improve job security and to get wages moving again.</para>
<para>As we know and as, I think, most Australians know, there's a big difference between the approach we have taken in government and the approach that was taken by those opposite when they were in government, who had low wage growth as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. We won't ever forget that. Keeping wages low was a deliberate decision of that former government. In our 18 months in office, we have made a number of changes, including legislation and policy changes, to make sure that we are doing what we can to ensure that Australian workers get a fair pay rise. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Walsh, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know the government's No. 1 priority is dealing with the inflation challenge and providing cost-of-living relief. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government's policy to support strong wage growth helps provide cost-of-living relief? How does this strategy work alongside the government's broader strategy to assist with cost-of-living pressures?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Walsh for the question. The Albanese Labor government's commitment to getting wages moving again is designed to put more money in the pockets of Australian workers and help people deal with the price pressures across the economy. It's why getting wages moving again was a key part and remains a key element of our $23 billion cost-of-living relief plan that's been carefully calibrated and designed to take the edge off some of the pressures that people are under, while not adding to the inflation challenge. In fact, what the ABS CPI data shows is that it actually shaved half a percentage point off inflation in the September quarter.</para>
<para>Of course, in addition to our focus on wages, we also have important cost-of-living measures like tripling the bulk-billing incentive, which started on 1 November to support 11.6 million eligible Australians to access a GP without out-of-pocket costs. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Walsh, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister explain to the Senate how the Albanese government's commitment to strong wage growth is part of its approach to responsible economic management? How are the deliberate decisions taken by the government helping to take pressure off inflation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Walsh for that supplementary. As a government we welcome solid wages growth after our predecessors spent the best part of a decade deliberately suppressing wages. Today's data further demonstrates that Labor is the party of strong economic management. We have delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years, taking the pressure off inflation and creating a more stable economic environment conducive to wages growth. We have returned an average of 87 per cent of revenue across our first two budgets, compared to 40 per cent under the former government, and the $40 billion in savings that we've identified across both budgets has allowed us to reprioritise spending to investments that deliver that cost-of-living relief, secure our essential services and boost the productivity of our economy—again in stark contrast to those opposite, who used robodebt as the way of generating savings for their budget bottom line, and we know the history attached to that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>49</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Brazil Council of Federation</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the Brazil Council of Federation, led by the secretary of the council, Presidency of the Republic of Brazil, Mrs Elaine Licio. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and particularly to the Senate.</para>
<para>Honourable senators: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>49</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday, when answering questions about the High Court case which has led to the release of individuals from immigration detention, government ministers in both chambers repeatedly emphasised that the government resisted the application in the High Court. As you know, the Australian Human Rights Commission appeared in that case and spent taxpayer money arguing against the government and for a result which has led directly to the release of murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. Under the Legal Services Directions, the longstanding requirement of governments on both sides, at least until May last year, was for the Human Rights Commission to seek approval from the Attorney-General before it makes constitutional submissions in the High Court. Did the Attorney-General give approval for the Australian Human Rights Commission to make submissions in the High Court?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I say to Senator Cash, I think you asked me a similar question on Monday—Tuesday? I'm sorry; the days are blurring. And I did undertake those consultations with the Attorney-General and was going to add to my answer today, at the end of question time. So, I appreciate the opportunity. I am advised that the Australian Human Rights Commission did receive the approval of the Attorney-General to engage lawyers other than the Australian Government Solicitor, which is a technical requirement under the Legal Services Directions. I'm advised that the commission was not required to seek approval for the substance of its submissions, which it made as an independent body, and it was abundantly clear that their submissions did not represent the views or the position of the Commonwealth of Australia.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After the orders in the case were handed down, the president of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Croucher, said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Those detained when they should have been released now have the vindication that their detention was unlawful and may be entitled to restitution.</para></quote>
<para>Does the government now intend to pay compensation to convicted child sex offenders, as the Human Rights Commission suggests?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously Ms Croucher is an independent officer, I think appointed under your government. Second, as the senator would know, and as the shadow Attorney-General the senator would be aware, we have a separation of powers in this country. We are a constitutional democracy. The Commonwealth of Australia, under this government, argued against the proposition that the High Court has found. But the High Court has made its decision, and the government is bound to follow it, and we are doing so.</para>
<para>I would also make the point that the other questions you ask are obviously hypotheticals. But the government will deal with any further legal matters and consequences as a result of this decision carefully and in a considered way. And as I flagged earlier, in my answer to Senator Paterson— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, in relation to your answer to my primary question, did the Attorney-General see or comment on the submissions before they were made, or was he advised of the nature of the submissions that the Australian Human Rights Commission would be making to the High Court of Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, the advice I have is that the Australian Human Rights Commission was not required to seek approval for the substance of its submissions, which it makes as an independent body, and was abundantly clear that these did not represent the views or the position of the Commonwealth of Australia. So, what we have is Senator Cash trying to put forward a proposition that an independent body—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is in relation to relevance, and I am happy for the minister to take it on notice and do appreciate that you may not have the answer. But, in relation to my point, it wasn't about the permission in relation to the submissions; it was in relation to the submissions and whether the Attorney-General was able to see or comment on them or was advised of the nature.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the minister is being relevant, Senator Cash, but I'll continue to listen carefully.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Very helpful, President and Senator Cash. What I can advise is this: (1) the Human Rights Commission was granted leave by the High Court to make submissions in the NZYQ case; (2) the commission is independent of government, and one of its legislated functions is to intervene in court cases that raise human rights issues. I am advised that neither the Attorney-General nor any other minister sign off on what those submissions say. Third, I'm advised that the Attorney-General approved the commission's request for an exemption in relation to its interventions in the terms I have already indicated. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question without notice is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Noting that a recent Department of Defence media release stated 'more than 70 Australian companies have directly shared more than $4.13 billion in global F-35 production and sustainment contracts' and that earlier this month it was revealed that Israel has been ordering F-35 spare parts from global suppliers for the F-35s it is using in the bombardment of Gaza, can the minister confirm whether or not Australia is or will be supplying F-35 parts to the State of Israel?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I first say that, given some of the events this week, I encourage all in here not to continue to promulgate some of the disinformation on social media. There's been a lot of disinformation on social media about what Australia is doing. I am advised that Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel since the Hamas-Israel conflict began and I am advised that that has been the case for at least the last five years.</para>
<para>I also make the point—and I trust that the senators down that end might do their part to push back on this disinformation—that the Australian government has not had any involvement in the conduct of the military conduct in Gaza. Given some of the misinformation on social media and the distress, anger and, frankly violent behaviour that we have seen, I trust that those in positions of authority might exercise—I'm not surprised you take a point of order at that!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order is about relevance. The question was about whether or not Australia is or will be supplying F-35 parts to the state of Israel. The minister's response is not relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is being relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>[inaudible] that, when he is asked to consider his responsibilities to the chamber, he takes a point of order, and he's doing it again.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is now (a) making a personal reflection and (b) clearly being not relevant to the question, which is: is or will Australia be supplying F-35 parts to the state of Israel?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. I will draw the minister back to the question, and the minister was not making a personal reflection.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If we want to talk about personal reflections, we might want to go back to yesterday, but I'm happy to respond—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. I have Senator Shoebridge on his feet. Senator Shoebridge?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister flouted your ruling and sought to again not be relevant and reduce to mudslinging.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, I am responding. The minister had just stood again and begun her response. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just waiting for you to stand before I speak, because you just like to do that! Do you want to do that? Come on!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, I am going to draw you back to the question</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I responded to your question, I think, in the first 20 seconds—that the advice I have from Defence is that Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel since the conflict began—and I again reiterate that there is a lot of disinformation on social media. I invite Senator Shoebridge and his leader to perhaps make sure they don't promulgate it as well. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given the criticism by Oxfam America and Amnesty International that the provision of 155-millimetre artillery shells to the State of Israel for use in Gaza undermined the protection of civilians and respect for international humanitarian law, what, if any, guarantees can you give that Australian 155-millimetre artillery shells produced by NIOA munitions at Maryborough will not be directly exported to the State of Israel in the future or indirectly sent for use in Gaza through the US under the approved community export arrangements with the US?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think, to be clear about the question, I have responded on the advice I have, which is that Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel since the Hamas-Israel conflict began and for at least the last five years. I think I understand from the question that I am asked to rule out something that may or may not happen in the future.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Right. Well, that's not an appropriate question for question time. I can tell you what our response is. I can tell you what the advice is. But you are trying—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't want to answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, you know what it is? You are trying to make this a political issue in here, and I am saying to you it is utterly irresponsible, given what is happening out there in the community, for you to be backing in some of the misinformation and disinformation on social media. It is irresponsible. Your party should take some control of what you are doing. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, what response do you have to the criticism published today by the Australian Institute of International Affairs that the lack of transparency around Australia's military exports leaves the government exposed to criticisms that Australian exported weapons could be used in conflicts like Gaza and that, without change, it risks Australia's credibility as a sponsor of the rules based international order?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the senator would be aware, we have initiated a review of the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 to ensure it remains effective, efficient and fit for purpose. I think the senator has been advised of that previously. In relation to the point about the international rules based order, that is an important point. That goes to who we are. You might recall, Senator, the motion you voted against in this chamber, the bipartisan motion on this conflict that you voted against, talked about in—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge! Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The motion that your party voted against in this chamber—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wow! Pfft! The motion that your party voted against in this chamber referenced, specifically, international humanitarian law, because that is an important national interest for Australia, and it is disappointing that you voted against it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement: Submarines</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on the progress being made by the Albanese government to deliver Australia's conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines and realise the benefits of the AUKUS partnership?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to Senator Smith, from the great state of South Australia, for her question about defence and defence industry jobs. I am pleased to say, in response to her question, that the government is making considerable progress. The Prime Minister was invited by President Biden for a state visit last month, and that visit was followed shortly by the Deputy Prime Minister. Both had successful engagements to drive our AUKUS partnership forward. Since announcing the pathway to acquire nuclear powered submarines, the Albanese government has taken tangible actions to implement the AUKUS partnership, including the investment of $150 million in skills and workforce development in the May budget; establishing the Australian Submarine Agency on 1 July; and commencing initial works on the submarine construction yard in our home state of South Australia—meaning mine and Senator Smith's, not everybody's.</para>
<para>Last week in Adelaide, the Deputy Prime Minister announced further decisive steps with Premier Malinauskas. The <inline font-style="italic">South Australian defence industry workforce and skills report</inline>, which helps identify how we can best develop the defence industry workforce in South Australia, was released; the land exchange between the Commonwealth and South Australian governments was finalised; and the government has released an exposure draft of enabling legislation critical for establishing a seamless industrial base with our AUKUS partners. At the heart of this legislation are game-changing reformers for the Australian defence industry, which should see the removal of burdensome red tape with the United Kingdom and the United States. As Deputy Prime Minister Marles has made clear, establishing a shared industrial base between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom is a core part of AUKUS. This is the greatest industrial endeavour Australia has embarked on for decades, and it will see jobs and economic investment for generations to come.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note the Minister for Defence was in South Australia last week where he visited the Osborne Naval Shipyard with Premier Peter Malinauskas. Can the minister tell the Senate how South Australia and, in particular, the defence industry will benefit from announcements made between the Albanese government and the South Australia government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Smith for her supplementary question. It gives me the opportunity to speak in a little more detail about the <inline font-style="italic">South Australian defence industry workforce and skills report</inline> and action plan that was released on Friday. That plan highlights that the defence industry in South Australia is forecast to grow from its current level of around 3½ thousand direct jobs to more than 8½ thousand direct jobs in the 2040s. Of course, what we need to do is act now to ensure we're able to recruit enough people with the right skills in five years and 10 years and beyond, and that is what the government is doing.</para>
<para>The action plan details a strategy to grow and sustain South Australia's defence industry workforce, the workforce that is required to deliver the largest and most complex defence project Australia has undertaken. It reaffirms the government's commitment to ensuring a continuous naval shipbuilding capability. The Deputy Prime Minister also announced the formal arrangement for land transfers between the Commonwealth and Australia to enable the development of a construction yard and the skills and training— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Marielle Smith, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What are some of the challenges the Albanese government has confronted in delivering these important defence industry projects?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If I may, I might just finish the last point I was making in relation to the previous question, which is: the development of the submarine construction yard and the Skills and Training Academy at Osborne, which also will enable 4,000 jobs expected in construction work over the years to come.</para>
<para>But, of course, there was a very different approach that was taken when those opposite were in government. We saw a decade of chaos and dysfunction. As the now shadow minister of defence as stated, Defence had too many ministers over a nine-year period, which, of course, led to a squandering of a lot of opportunity. And, of course, the approach of the former government was to promise the world and then walk away from it. We saw the in-and-out deal with Japan, then the in-and-out deal with France, and who can forget Senator Johnston saying he wouldn't trust the Australian Submarine Corporation to build a canoe!<inline font-style="italic"> (Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Humanitarian Assistance</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. With no end in sight to Australia's cost-of-living crisis and with Labor policies like record immigration and increased public spending making inflation even worse than it needs to be, the Albanese government has substantially increased our foreign aid budget to over $5 billion per year across the forward estimates and has signalled more increases to come after. Is the Albanese Labor government in discussion about an increase on the $10 million of aid Australia has already provided to Gaza following the terrorist attacks in Israel?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think there are two parts to that question, Senator Hanson. I will seek to address both of them. The first is in relation to foreign aid, and I appreciate you have a different view, but we do see development assistance as an element of our national power. It is an element of how we influence the world, and we do think there is obviously an ethical argument for making sure a child doesn't die and averting a death. That is a good thing for humanity. But there is also a very pragmatic and national security reason, which is we do better in a world where there is more stability and more prosperity, particularly in our region. We do better in a region that is more stable and more prosperous, and our development assistance is about trying to ensure that. So it is about the interests of Australians.</para>
<para>I think the question that you are asking goes to the UN Relief and Works Agency; I think that might be what you're referencing in terms of Gaza. I would just make the point that this is the only organisation with a mandate to provide basic services to the Palestinian people. Obviously, we all have a view about the abhorrent nature of Hamas, which, regrettably, retains much control in Gaza. The only way in which we can provide assistance in a sensible or legitimate way to the Palestinian people in Gaza and also in the West Bank is through the UN Relief and Works Agency. That is funding that was previously provided by both the Turnbull and the Abbott government. It is also funded by the United States, and Secretary of State Blinken has previously indicated that the US remains committed to supporting this entity.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>HANSON (—) (): It was revealed on the weekend that Australians have been donating thousands of dollars to a charity founded by the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network president and terror apologist Nasser Mashni, which is funnelling the money to an aid organisation in Gaza accused of links to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group. Minister, what assurances do you offer the Australian people that their taxpayer dollars are not supporting terrorists?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will confirm this, Senator, but I think, having looked at this after the story broke, that that is not an entity the Australian government funds. The funding that we provide is through the UN Relief and Works Agency. I think that's UNRWA—sorry, I'm quite tired. The entity that you describe is funded by private donation. That is my recollection. If I'm incorrect, I will come back to this chamber and clarify that with you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government is increasing foreign aid, while the Australian people are experiencing a lower standard of living, declining access to health care, massive energy cost increases, rising crime and rising interest rates. When is the Albanese government going to stop putting the needs of foreign countries first, before Australia, when so many Australians are struggling and suffering?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd make two points. As you would know, the government is very focused on the cost-of-living challenges that Australians are facing. That is why we saw some $23 billion worth of cost-of-living measures in the budget. That is why we are seeking to get wages moving again, and, as Senator Gallagher said in her first answer, we are very pleased to see how the figures released today show that wages are at a much better level than they have been for many years. Obviously, there's a lot more work to do, and we know how inflation is a challenge within the economy and for families, but this is what we are focused on: how do we ensure that wages get moving and how do we deal with cost-of-living matters? In relation to development assistance, I'd refer you to the strategic argument I put in my first answer.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. As the minister has acknowledged today, we are assured by the government that the 83 individuals—as I understand it now—released following last week's High Court decision are subject to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a range of strict mandatory visa conditions. Such conditions include restricting types of employment, requiring regular reporting to authorities, and requiring released detainees to report their personal detail including their social media profiles …</para></quote>
<para>My colleague Senator Paterson has asked on multiple occasions: what are the specific consequences if one of these 83 individuals released from immigration detention violates these visa conditions? Is it the fact that the penalty for breaching a visa condition is detention pending removal, which the High Court has ruled unconstitutional for this cohort? Is that the reality that Senator Paterson has identified and the government has failed so far to address?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is the case that the legislative framework that you operated under did not contemplate a constitutional view of detention that has been found by the High Court, so it is the case that the arrangements, the legislative or regulatory framework associated with such persons, will need to be amended. The government is working through that, and, as I said, the government intends to introduce legislation shortly to further respond to the decision of the High Court. We look forward to the opposition assisting with passage of that legislation as soon as is possible.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, first supplementary?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition, since the ruling was handed down last week, has repeatedly suggested the need for the government to legislate remedies as a result of the ruling. But as recently as this morning the Minister for Home Affairs described calls to legislate as, 'garbage' and 'categorically false'. Was Minister O'Neil correct in her assertions then, or when was the decision taken by government to bring legislation to the parliament, as the opposition has been suggesting? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First, I don't think that is an accurate reflection of what Ms O'Neil said. Second, the government has been very promptly seeking to deal with a decision that does, as Senator Paterson himself indicated, overturn a 20-year precedent, and, as a consequence, a set of changes are likely to be required in relation to the framework that was your framework, as well as the framework under which we've been operating and the High Court has now said is unconstitutional in this regard. I would note—and I do sound a note of caution—that as yet the High Court has not handed down its reasons for the decision. No doubt those will need to be studied as well when that does occur because this does represent a very substantial change in position from what was understood by your government. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, second supplementary?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First the government said it would await those reasons for the decision before releasing any other individuals. Then the government said that it was not pursuing legislative remedies and described them as garbage but now it is doing so. The government said that individuals were subject to visas upon release. Now because of a technicality that'll be occurring after release. How does this provide confidence to Australians that the government is comprehensively handling— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, there are a lot of assertions in there, and the great majority of them are simply untrue. I know that the opposition want to jump on this and play a lot of politics with it. I know they're much more interested in talking about this than the cost of living.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not by the answers you give.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash really loves to suggest that she's the only person who cares about keeping Australians safe. Actually, we do too; we all do. You are not the only person in the universe who cares about national security. We do. I know you are salivating at playing domestic politics with this. This is a decision, as Senator Paterson rightly pointed out, that overturns a 20-year precedent. It's going to require legislative or regulatory— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget: National Broadcaster</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management and the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. Already this year we have seen bushfires raging across Queensland, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania. We have seen people die already, and we have seen homes destroyed, and it's only mid-November. During emergencies reliable and timely information is essential to protect both people and property. Will the government boost ABC funding to ensure that the ABC, our national emergency broadcaster, can continue to keep Australians informed and safe?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. As I've pointed out repeatedly in this chamber, the Albanese government are strong supporters of the ABC—and SBS, for that matter—as our national public broadcasters. We were very proud of the fact that in our first budget, I think, we reversed a substantial portion of the funding cuts that had been imposed on the ABC by the former coalition government, who we know are no friends of public broadcasting or the ABC.</para>
<para>I absolutely recognise the vital role of the ABC when it comes to emergency broadcasting. I've personally relied on it, and I've certainly met a lot of Australians who have. Of course, one of the reasons that people become reliant on ABC emergency broadcasts is that, as you point out, there are occasions when our communications networks do fail because of the impact of disasters. Literally, the way that people stay aware of emergency situations is by having a portable radio—battery powered, not reliant on the electricity network—to receive those emergency warnings.</para>
<para>You would be aware, I'm sure, Senator Hanson-Young, that, in addition to restoring the funding cut by the former coalition government, this government has taken a number of steps to lock in certainty around future ABC funding, in particular locking in five-year funding terms of increased funding so that the ABC, whether it be the emergency broadcasting section or any other, is not subject to the whims of the government of the day and is not subject to the risk of political interference through fear of losing their funding. That will assist the emergency broadcasting role of the ABC in addition to the many other important roles that the ABC plays. We're, of course, also conducting a review into options for strengthening the independence of the ABC to safeguard against further arbitrary funding cuts that we might see from a future coalition government. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The ABC does not receive extra funding to do this vital work of keeping Australians informed and safe. We know that we can't rely on telecommunications services such as Optus. We've seen that over the last week. Next month, your government is going to be handing down MYEFO. Ahead of this horror summer, will you commit to extra funding to keep Australians safe and informed and help the ABC do their job? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know that Senator Gallagher would have a lot to say if I were to reveal MYEFO commitments before the day itself. As I say, the actions that we have already taken in restoring to the ABC the funding cut by the former government and in locking in that guaranteed funding for five years for the ABC obviously will partially benefit the ABC's emergency broadcasting section in addition to its other services. But this is not the only thing that this government is doing to improve our preparedness for this disaster season. I've already said that this year we will have the largest-ever fleet of aerial firefighting planes that we've ever had in this country—around 500. We've obviously taken steps through our disaster ready fund, and, even in communications, we're well on the way to delivering a much better and faster messaging service for people in emergency situations as well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson Young, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At Senate estimates only a couple of weeks ago, the ABC revealed that they have received no extra funding to help them do this vital work. It's essential. It's important. The ABC do it out of the rest of their budget. I urge you to consider funding the ABC properly and to ensure that Australians have access to this information at the time when it is most needed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. Again, you would be familiar with the fact that the ABC does operate independently of government, and we don't direct them as to how they should use the funding that's provided by government. It's a matter for ABC management to decide whether they dedicate the extra funding that we've provided to emergency broadcasting or to their other activities. I will note, though—Senator McAllister has drawn my attention to a speech the Minister for Communications gave to the ABC Friends of Victoria, I think in November last year, in which she talked about the reinstatement of funding that had been cut by the coalition. Minister Rowland said on budget night in October last year that she was pleased to see the ABC welcome the extra funding commitment, issuing a statement that said, 'The increase in funding will mean greater capacity to deliver emergency broadcasting services to provide crucial information.' So it would appear that, in the ABC's own words, they have received funding that will assist them with that service.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mining Industry</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Senator Watt. I refer to the announcement by the Prime Minister during his recent visit to the United States that the Albanese government will deliver a $2 billion expansion in critical minerals financing, which will solidify Australia's position as a world-leading provider, help the transition to net zero, boost the economy and support more jobs and opportunities for Australians. Noting this expansion of the critical minerals facility takes the government's value-adding investments in Australian resources to $6 billion, can the minister please explain to the Senate how investing in critical minerals financing will bolster the sector in Australia, resulting in technology, skills, jobs and economic benefits for Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Sterle, who I know as a Western Australian senator is very excited about the opportunities around critical minerals, as, might I say, are Senator Green and Senator Chisholm, from Queensland, where there are lots of opportunities too—and no doubt other states as well.</para>
<para>Before answering Senator Sterle's question, I do want to start by offering my sincere condolences to everyone affected by the tragic accident at Alcoa's refinery in Pinjarra, Western Australia, which is obviously also in the resources sector. Every worker has the right to a safe workplace and every worker deserves to arrive home to their family after a day's work, so we do pass on our condolences to the families and friends of those workers.</para>
<para>Workers are central to our resources sector, and the Albanese government is committed to developing Australia's critical minerals sector. This sector is critical to the transition to net zero, and we are making investments to support that transition to drive economic growth and create high-value jobs. As the Prime Minister recently announced in the United States, we've double the finance available under the critical minerals facility, which supports the projects required to secure the minerals of the future. I note, Senator Sterle, that there are a lot of people who've had a bit to say about the Prime Minister's international engagement, but this is an example of why it is important to have international engagement: because it delivers these types of investments that create jobs for Australians.</para>
<para>This facility is aligned with our critical minerals strategy, which clearly outlines our vision for Australia to be the supplier of choice of critical minerals to the world. Not only will be export our ores; we will provide more processed and refined material to capture more value here in Australia. The Albanese government is investing our ability to build, refine and manufacture things here in Australia. We want to have a future built in Australia. Our resources sector and our manufacturing sector will work hand in hand to deliver the jobs of the future.</para>
<para>Research from University of California Berkeley has found that every skilled job creating in advanced manufacturing creates 2.5 jobs in the local economy. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sterle, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Noting that a sustainable and reliable supply of critical minerals is vital to supporting the Australian and United States manufacturing sector and that Australia is ideally positioned to provide responsibly produced and processed critical minerals to fulfil this demand, can the minister please outline what other measures the Albanese government is delivering to ensure our critical minerals industry can grow and thrive into the future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I certainly can. Earlier this year Minister Madeleine King announced close to $50 million in grants under the Critical Minerals Development Program. You might be interested to know, Senator Sterle, that those grants included $5.9 million to the Browns Range heavy rare earths project in Halls Creek, in your state of Western Australia, creating 54 new jobs, and $6.25 million to the magnesium refinery pilot plan in Collie, Western Australia, creating 46 new jobs. Beyond that, we've also committed $57.1 million for international partnerships in critical minerals. The Minister for Resources has been working with counterparts in India, the United States and across Europe to progress our shared interest in building strong and diverse global supply chains in critical minerals. We also know all the levers to build our industry can't just sit in one portfolio, and that's why Minister Husic is working with the newly appointed National Reconstruction Fund board to deliver the $1 billion earmarked to support value-adding in resources.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sterle, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recognising the expanded critical minerals facility supports the Australian government's Critical Minerals Strategy 2023-2030, why has the Albanese government taken this approach in preference to other proposed approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Sterle. The Albanese government's Critical Minerals Strategy sets a plan and a framework to grow Australia's critical minerals industry, and the $2 billion expansion to the Critical Minerals Facility will support projects that align with that strategy. I do remember a lot of announcements by the former government when it came to critical minerals, but, as with so many other features of their government, there were lots of announcements and no real delivery, and it is the same when it comes to critical minerals. To pick just one way in which our approach differs, apart from announcements that actually deliver, we are a government that is committed to consultation with industry. Consultation with industry didn't seem to be a priority of the Liberals and the Nationals, just as delivery didn't seem to be a priority. They delivered two critical minerals strategies and a critical minerals list—lots of big announcements—but they hardly delivered anything and hardly consulted anyone. This government is committed to acting with transparency and integrity and, unlike the Liberals and Nationals, we will actually deliver.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin Plan</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. I want to acknowledge there are food processors and producers in the house today for the 'taste of the basin' event tonight. Dairy farmer Malcolm Holm told a recent Senate inquiry that, if he sold his water and converted his farm to dryland, he would immediately lay off 12 staff that he currently employs. Minister, can you tell the chamber what modelling the government has done to benchmark the impact of its water buyback policies on regional communities to ensure it does not result in job losses and drive up the cost of living for everyday Australian households?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Davey. I also briefly dropped in at an event yesterday—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Davey</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So did I.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You did too, so you would know that there were also farmers and agricultural producers as well as environmentalists and community people who are supportive of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I would also make, if I can, a shout-out to Henry Jones's wife, Gloria, who was there cooking the mullet. Henry, of course, is now—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Coorong mullet, I should say. Henry was a fisherman who was a strong advocate for reform of the basin—a very decent man who spent a lot of his life working on these issues.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Davey?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Davey</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>While I appreciate the minister outlining what happened yesterday—it was delicious mullet—I would like to bring her to the point of the question. She's got a minute left to tell us what modelling the government has done.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. The minister is being relevant. We are talking about the Murray-Darling Basin, as I understand it. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. How is this relevant? President, I know you're from WA, but this is actually about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That's how it's relevant. I know that the National Party doesn't support the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I know that they say that they really don't want to support it, and they won't recognise the enormous amount of environmental and economic work that was done for the plan. Your government adopted the plan, but the problem was you adopted it so that Senator Birmingham and Senator Ruston could go to Adelaide and say, 'We've got the Murray-Darling Basin Plan,' but you just made sure you never did anything. So you actually didn't deliver, almost, any water. The great political solution for the coalition and their enormous division on water policy was that you adopt a plan but you don't actually do anything about it. Well, that isn't the approach we'll be taking, because we recognise, as Malcolm Turnbull did, that you have to have reform in the Murray-Darling Basin.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Davey, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the same hearings the chairman of SPC Global, Mr Hussein Hani Rifai, spoke of the risk to that company and its ability to compete against cheap imports. Minister, will you guarantee that none of the businesses, farms or manufacturers that Australia relies on for food and fibre will go bust or lay off workers as a result of Labor's buyback policies? Have you done the modelling?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was subject to an enormous amount of research and consultation, and the senator knows that.</para>
<para>The reality, though, is that none of that will change the minds of the National Party. I will just remind you, Senator, of some of your colleagues, Senator Ruston said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We will not stop trying, because we are committed to the delivery of the plan.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Birmingham said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the government stands resolute in its support … of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan … in full and on time.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Stevens and Senator McLachlan said that they supported buybacks. So what is your policy? In government, we know what it is. What is it in opposition? What is the Dutton opposition's policy on the Murray-Darling Basin?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Mayor of Balonne Shire in Queensland, Sam O'Toole, spoke of the impact of the last round of untargeted open-slather buybacks. Minister, why is the government removing the Labor Party's social and economic impact test from the plan for water recovery that will impact communities like Balonne Shire which are so reliant on agriculture?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government is aware that this is a difficult issue. We understand. I understand personally. I've been the water minister, and I've travelled a lot through the basin. I understand that this is a really challenging issue for many communities, but, as I've said to them, I'm not going to be one of those politicians that turn up and pretend that things can go on as they were, because they can't. I know that Mr Joyce and the National Party want to keep telling people that nothing needs to change, but we know that is not the case. The choice is that either you are upfront with people about what needs to happen or you keep pretending to them that nothing needs to change, and we know that's not true.</para>
<para>The government will put in place appropriate structural adjustment. The government will put in place appropriate consultation. But I do say to you again: let's not pretend after so many years that things can go on without any change. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Economic Security</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Improving women's economic equality is rightly a priority of the Albanese government. The recent employment white paper notes that this will require focus on ways we can better value and share care to reduce workforce gender segregation. The white paper also notes that Australia has one of the highest rates of women working part time in the OECD, and analysis released by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency today backs this finding, highlighting our challenges in workforce participation. So can the minister please outline the government's understanding of women's experiences of part-time work in Australia and what this means for their economic security?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pratt for the question. As she points out in her question to me, WGEA has today released important new data indicating how part-time work is affecting women's economic equality. WGEA's annual employer census showed that women were more likely to work part time than men. In the survey, 30 per cent of women worked part time, compared to 11 per cent of men. The WGEA data also confirmed that seven per cent of management roles were held by part-time employees. WGEA said that the data pointed to what it called what a part-time promotion cliff for women.</para>
<para>Australia has one of the highest rates of women in part-time employment in the OECD, behind the Netherlands, Switzerland and Japan. A key driver of these different patterns of employment is the significant and long-term adjustments women typically make to their paid employment following the arrival of children, while at the same time men's employment patterns remain largely unchanged. Working part time means women's incomes are lower and they retire with less super and savings. This contributes to the gender earnings gap, which still sits at 13 per cent nationally. This data demonstrates that we have a long way to go to achieve economic equality for women, with women still taking on the majority of care roles in households, which has flow-on impacts on their workforce participation. There must be greater recognition that a rich career often includes times of working differently, including to care for children, and this should not be incompatible with advancement, recognition or working in senior roles. Families should be supported to share care more equally, enabling both parents to have time to care for and connect with their children. That is why our investment in child care and our parental leave reforms—which provide each parent four weeks of reserve leave from by 2026, when the full scheme is implemented—encourages that shared care.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Senator Pratt, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In light of the WGEA data, could the minister please tell the Senate what action the Albanese government is taking to close the gender pay gap and support overall workforce participation, safety at work and the economic independence of Australian women?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pratt for the supplementary. There are some reforms that we've introduced to the published: the gender pay gaps of employers with 100 or more workers, which is a key reform to drive transparency and action towards closing the gender pay gap and will be key, I think, to shining a bit of light on what's going on. I think many businesses I've spoken to are supportive of that reform.</para>
<para>Workforce gender segregation contributes to the gender pay gap, as men continue to dominate in industries and occupations with higher earnings and women in occupations with lower earnings, also reflecting the historical undervaluing of feminised jobs. So we need to come at this through a variety of ways, including through the Australian Skills Guarantee, through the reforms under the gender pay gap reporting and through our support for proper wages in aged care and proper funding and indexation for community organisations, another area where workers are predominantly women.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pratt, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister outline how the government is working to address the challenges facing women's employment and economic participation? How will this approach help tackle long-term inequality and improve outcomes for Australian women?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has made addressing women's economic equality central to our decision-making in government, so you have seen the reforms that we've introduced through our measures around investments in child care and those reforms I talked about in gender pay gap reporting. We've got measures across the education and training sectors, through the Skills Guarantee. We've addressed some of the big issues around the parenting payment single and programs like ParentsNext. I've got the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce report, which will feed into the National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality next year. All of that is pulling in the direction of wanting to address some of the structural barriers to women's economic independence and economic equality and make sure that women get a fair crack at the opportunities going forward.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Humanitarian Assistance</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In Senator Hanson's absence, I just have something to add to the answer I gave to her. Australia takes our counterterrorism, antifraud and anticorruption obligations when delivering humanitarian assistance very seriously. I can assure the senator that any support we are providing in response to this crisis goes through trusted partners, including the Red Cross, UNICEF and other UN agencies. All agreements with partners have strict counterterrorism, antifraud and anticorruption requirements, which are closely monitored and applied. Our partners take appropriate due diligence processes, coupled with our own approach to counterterrorism, which mitigates the risk of Australian funding, directly or indirectly, going to Hamas.</para>
<para>I also referred to the UN relief and works agency. Our closest like-mindeds all fund the UN relief and works agency, including the UK, which provides 20 million pounds a year. And the largest contributor to the agency is the United States.</para>
<para>Senator Hanson also asked about what non-government organisations are doing with money they raise from the public. Australians who wish to donate are urged to go to DFAT's Crisis Hub webpage, which includes advice on how to donate with confidence. Australia's counter-terrorism-financing sanctions make it an offence to use or deal with an asset owned or controlled by a listed person or entity or to provide any kind of asset to them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>60</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Answers to Questions</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today.</para></quote>
<para>We did learn in these answers that the government has no idea whether its interventions in Australia's most important food bowl are going to have any impact on food prices for Australians. Anyone who has been to the supermarket in the past year or so—and that would be most people, I'd say—would know how expensive things are at the shops, how expensive food has become, along with many other products. Since this government came to power, bread prices have gone up by 21 per cent, milk prices by 18 per cent and egg prices by 17 per cent. You would think that in that environment the government would be very wary about making any changes that make it harder or more costly for Australian farmers to produce food and therefore potentially have a bigger impact on prices than already exists.</para>
<para>But this government is rushing headlong into making major changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and they're completely unnecessary changes at that. We have plenty of different ways to recover water for the environment. Instead, this government is headlong obsessed with buying back water from Australian farmers. And if you buy back water, farmers are going to produce less food. These are not buybacks; they're buyouts. They buy out the farm, the farmers shut down—farmers do very well out of it, quite often—and they'll end up reducing their production, as we heard in Senator Davey's question today, and reduce their supply of food. And what will reduced supply mean? It'll mean higher prices for that food overall.</para>
<para>In fact, the Murray-Darling Basin is our nation's food bowl. It produces 40 per cent of our country's food. It produces over 70 per cent of our nation's oranges, peaches and grapes. It produces over 20 per cent of our nation's milk. While I now live a long way from the Murray-Darling Basin, I've had a lot to do with it over the years, and I was fortunate enough to join Senator Davey a few weeks ago to travel through the Murray-Darling Basin for a week. We went to Shepparton, to Mildura, to Renmark, to Griffith and to Moree—all around the basin. We did that because the Senate committee that is looking into the government's plans on water buybacks, which is dominated by government senators, refused to hold hearings in the Murray-Darling. The government is making these massive changes to the Murray-Darling, massive changes that are going to impact our nation's farmers, yet they refuse to hold public hearings where those impacts would be.</para>
<para>When we went to these towns we heard from these communities, heard from farmers how anxious they are about water buybacks coming back in and potentially completely changing the economic structure of their community. We heard from the CEO of SPC, a great Australian company in Shepparton that produces so much food for our country. He very clearly told us, regarding buybacks—and the reason the government didn't go to Shepparton is that they didn't want to hear this, of course—that the cost of the inputs, of food, would be higher, and therefore in order to recover costs and make a modest profit they would have to sell at a higher price. That's what will happen. That will be the consequence of this government's policies.</para>
<para>But we heard today that the government is taking a shoot-first, maybe-ask-questions-later approach. They haven't done any modelling. They haven't done any investigation into what exactly the impacts of their obsession with water buybacks will have on food prices for Australians. That should make every Australian very worried, because it is already costly enough to buy food in our nation's shops. Australians are already reporting that they are cutting back on meals because they cannot afford to buy food at their local shops. In that environment, why would we be making our farmers' lives tougher? Why would we be making it harder for people in our country to grow our food and to supply Australians with affordable, high-quality produce that we are so lucky to, in normal times, have the advantage of having?</para>
<para>We've had a very good few years in food production in Australia. We've had very good seasons. These higher prices we're seeing are not a consequence of a lack of food production; they're a consequence of higher energy prices and higher labour prices, with inflation generally flowing through to food prices. But if, on top of that, we put a man-made drought onto our nation's farmers by restricting their use of water, these prices will only be a foretaste of what might come for Australians having to access food in their supermarkets. So the government should end this obsession with water buybacks. They should listen to our nation's farmers. And, most of all, they should protect living costs for all Australians and encourage food production in Australia, not make it harder.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We all know that last week the High Court made a ruling that people who were in indefinite detention be released—that they could no longer be detained. And, of course, on this side our focus is on managing this mandatory decision and on community safety. So Minister Clare O'Neil has set the strictest possible visa conditions for this group of people. The Australian Federal Police have briefed, in person, each state, federal and territory commissioner to ensure that they're aware of what is happening in the process.</para>
<para>I would like to add that, although those opposite come in to play politics with this issue, the government did argue that these people continue to be kept in detention. What those on the other side don't seem to realise is that we have to follow the rule of law. We know that many on the other side—in fact, a huge number of people on the other side—obviously don't believe in following the rule of law, and we know that because of how they behaved through the robodebt issue. But we had to release those people. We argued against the outcome in the High Court, but the High Court last week issued a writ telling the government they had to release these people, so these people have been released. They've been put on bridging visas with, as I understand, the strictest of conditions.</para>
<para>The High Court still has yet to release its full judgement, so I would remind people that, within this judgement, the High Court has actually overturned a 20-year precedent. When those opposite were in government, they didn't have to ever worry about what might happen if the High Court were to determine that these people had to be released, but we do. We were already working towards that and were prepared for it, as it might well be a result. Our minister worked diligently with the Australian Border Force and the Australian Federal Police to establish that, if and when it did happen that we were ordered to release them, those people who've been released would be moved into state and territory post-offending programs where appropriate. I also understand that each offender is being case monitored. So, as I've stated, these people are being released under very strict conditions, and those conditions include regular reporting to authorities; reporting their personal details, including any social media profiles, which, of course, are being actively monitored; and restrictions to the type of employment that they can undertake. As I said, this is on top of any reporting orders imposed by state, territory or federal law enforcement agencies.</para>
<para>This government has been really proactive with regard to informing law enforcement about people being released, as I said, so that territories and states can ensure that they keep their communities safe. The government is looking at legislative and regulatory options to ensure safety in the community. But we cannot and should not ever ignore the decision of the High Court, and that's why we've had to act. Those on the other side have asked questions this week as though we had an option to act or not act. Well, we don't. It's mandatory. If the High Court make a decision, it's mandatory for the government to act.</para>
<para>Today we heard concerns about the President of the Human Rights Commission. Well, when I last looked, the President of the Human Rights Commission was an independent officer, and I think that the current President of the Human Rights Commission was actually appointed under the former government. I remember when there were issues with a previous president of the Human Rights Commission and people wanting to make sure that person was no longer in the job, so I'm pretty sure that the President of the Human Rights Commission was appointed under the former government. Of course, as I said, it's an independent office, so there's a separation of powers that we have in this country, and those opposite know all this.</para>
<para>As I've said, we argued against the decision, but we're bound to follow it, and those opposite need to remember that. Only earlier this week, I heard Senator Duniam complaining that we weren't talking about cost of living, and it was not on just one occasion but on numerous occasions that I heard Senator Duniam say that, while they were voting with the Greens against the sea dumping legislation. Three out of four questions today were on this matter. In fact, none of the questions today were about cost of living.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I too rise to take note of answers, in this case from Minister Wong, to questions from coalition senators. I'll take the point that has just been made, that Senator Wong did refer to the cost of living. That does surprise me somewhat, because despite all of the promises by the Albanese government ahead of the last election, none have delivered the benefits that the Australian people were led to believe.</para>
<para>CPI data just from this past week shows that food is up by 8.2 per cent; housing costs are by 10.4 per cent; insurance by 17.3 per cent; nationally, electricity is up by 18.2 per cent, but AGL and Origin—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bilyk, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Bilyk</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sure I didn't hear any questions from the opposition today in regard to the cost of living. Am I correct? There was one in relation to inflation and wages, I think. Senator Wong did mention it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order—this is not in my response time—I'm taking note of answers to questions. In Senator Wong's answer, she queried why we weren't raising the cost of living. So I—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are in order, Senator Fawcett.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Always people are speaking without thinking through the facts. The facts, as confirmed by Origin and AGL, are that in my home state of South Australia, far from seeing bills go down by $275, which was promised time and time again by now Prime Minister Albanese ahead of the election, prices have gone up by 24.2 per cent, which is an increase of some $405. That is due to the ideological approach taken by this government, which is highlighted by the OECD and the International Energy Agency that a pursuit of an energy system reliant on variable renewables will, over time, as we seek to constrain emissions, drive prices up. That's not a coalition position. It's the position of economic and engineering experts globally, and they base that on the lived experience of the OECD.</para>
<para>I would like to come to the substantive matter that we had talked about, which is Labor's response to the High Court decision. I take the comment that the government is obliged to follow the direction of the court, but the question is how quickly and how effectively the government responds. The questions today were around the confusion in government messaging as to what they were or were not doing.</para>
<para>I come to comments made in this chamber about human rights of continuing detention. My view, and I think the view of many in Australia, is that when someone has shown they are a repeat offender or, in the case of they have not recanted from an ideological position, in the case of terrorism, then they are a continuing risk to the Australian population. We actually have an obligation to the human right of Australians to be safe. I notice in the case of one of the people who has been released that one of the victims, Sonya—I'm not sure if that's her true name—was reported in the media as saying there is too much emphasis on the victimhood of the perpetrators who are held in immigration detention indefinitely rather than on the victims themselves, people who have lifelong damage from the criminal conduct. She was talking about an individual who was sentenced to seven years and six months after pleading guilty to two counts of rape and one of sexual assault. In her victim impact statements, she says the crime was heinous and life altering and has caused anxiety, nightmares and a feeling of anger and disgust that will stay with her for the rest of her life.</para>
<para>We have an obligation to protect the human rights of people like Sonya, not just to look at the ideological or the purist argument about the offender. This is not an ongoing punishment. In fact, I go to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in 2016, which I was a member of, where we looked at the very issue of continuing detention orders. It said in that report that a CDO is not intended to repunish past behaviour but rather to protect the community from an unacceptable risk of future harm that may be caused by an unreformed convicted terrorist being released at the end of their prison sentence. Not only do we have this issue with people released from immigration detention; we have the issue now that the government is face of Mr Benbrika, a convicted terrorist, who had his citizenship rescinded by Mr Dutton, when he was in the appropriate ministerial portfolio, on the basis of legislation. That has also been overturned by the High Court, and this government has an obligation to instigate measures rapidly both to ensure a continuing CDO and to reform the legislation so that people who have acted contrary to the interests of Australia can be deported.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yet again it's disappointing to see the coalition continuing to play politics with a decision of our supreme court, the High Court of Australia. Just to be absolutely clear, I want to read out an answer that was given by Senator Wong in response to a question asked by Senator Birmingham which I think really sums up where we are today. Senator Wong said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is the case that the legislative framework that you—</para></quote>
<para>that is, the coalition—</para>
<quote><para class="block">operated under did not contemplate a constitutional view of detention that has been found by the High Court, so it is the case that the arrangements, the legislative or regulatory framework associated with such persons, will need to be amended. The government is working through that … the government intends to introduce legislation shortly to further respond to the decision of the High Court. We look forward to the opposition assisting with passage of that legislation as soon as is possible.</para></quote>
<para>In essence, we are dealing here with a situation where the High Court of Australia has overturned a 20-year precedent, a situation where the government is working very much around the clock in anticipation of viewing the High Court's decision, which has not been made public, working with those—and hopefully with the opposition's support—at a stage soon to get legislation through the parliament to ensure that we make changes to address this situation. What I find quite offensive in this place is that we have individuals and a coalition party playing politics with the very serious set of circumstances currently before the government, which is trying to be responsible and to, as you'd expect from any government, act within the law of the country.</para>
<para>The High Court has found individuals to be unlawfully detained, and the government cannot ignore that. The government must act immediately, and it must act in accordance with the law, the law that we pass in this country. All governments must act in accordance with the law. I know that might be a controversial view for some in this place, particularly those opposite who want to play politics. After all, they are the architects of the unlawful robodebt scheme. We know that the coalition is struggling with this concept, and I'm quite amazed and surprised that they would continue to act in such a way. The government's concern has been that of community safety, not the political games of those opposite. The government has taken action to ensure that the community's safety is protected within the law that we currently have.</para>
<para>We started well before the High Court decision was handed down. Our border protection and law enforcement agencies have been working to make sure that the toughest possible conditions can be placed on those individuals. The government continues to work around the clock with these agencies to uphold the safety of our community. The government is also exploring further measures, including the legislative and regulatory options that are before us, to ensure the community's safety as we work through the implications of the High Court decision, noting the court is yet to hand down its reasons. Prior to any of the individuals other than the plaintiff being released, a joint ABF—that is, the Australian Border Force—and AFP, Australian Federal Police, operation was launched. So the suggestion from those opposite that the government did not make preparations before releasing these people is simply incorrect.</para>
<para>The individuals were required to be released, as I've stated, but are subject to very strict mandatory visa conditions. Such conditions include restricting the type of employment, requiring regular reporting to authorities, and requiring released detainees to report their personal details, including any social media profiles which they might have—which, as I understand, are being actively monitored—as well as other measures. I'm sure the security agencies and law enforcement agencies are monitoring very closely. I do think people need to come into this place with a perspective—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Ciccone. I will give the call to Senator Antic and set the clocks for three minutes, as I understand the time is to be split with One Nation.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ANTIC</name>
    <name.id>269375</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy President; I'll have to truncate my remarks based on that early warning. As far as I'm concerned, it is an extraordinary day in the Australian federal parliament—actually, it was yesterday—when you see the cheer squad of the socialist Left in this country, the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> newspaper, taking aim at the most socialist government we have had in this country in living memory, possibly since the Whitlam government. The <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> story, which was referred to by my colleague Senator Fawcett, was about this lady—this victim—Sonya, who has given her story to the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>.</para>
<para>I'll come to that in a minute, but, of course, I'm taking note of the answers given by Senator Wong in relation to the recent decision of the High Court overturning a 20-year precedent that has underpinned the migration policy in this country. The net effect of that has been that, I think, the plaintiff in this case—a man who, by the way, raped a 10-year-old boy; a child sexual offender—is released into the community. We know that there are at least 83 at the moment and potentially upwards of 92 detainees who are going to be released from immigration detention as a consequence of this judgement.</para>
<para>When challenged in the House yesterday, the Labor government continued to fudge its position in respect of what is happening. We were told that there were going to be strict restrictions put on the detainees. In fact, here today Senator Ciccone has just mentioned the government is working through these issues, which is good to know. It's good to know we're working through them. We heard from Senator Bilyk that there was a strong chance these people were going to be case managed—that's encouraging. We also heard earlier on, I think, that this government has left open the option of electronic bracelets for the ankles. That's going to be a great comfort, isn't it, for people like Sonya, whom the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>—the cheer squad of the socialist Left in this country—reported on? The <inline font-style="italic">Guardian </inline>says here:</para>
<quote><para class="block">When the man who raped Sonya at her work was released on parole, she was told he would "never be free in Australia" as he would be held indefinitely in immigration detention.</para></quote>
<para>That's not the awful Murdoch press that we hear so much about; that's the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>.</para>
<para>There are people in this country driving around now who are putting bumper stickers on with, 'Don't blame me; I voted Liberal.' The buyers remorse about this government is now reaching fever point, and this highlights it. The government have no idea what they're doing about this. They're scrambling for a solution, and all the time in the meantime, Australian people are being put at risk because of this flat-footed approach to this decision.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Humanitarian Assistance</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to foreign aid.</para></quote>
<para>I asked the foreign affairs minister today about foreign aid. At the moment, we're paying over $5 billion in foreign aid. I asked the minister the question about giving foreign aid. She said that it keeps peace in the region, we're actually doing it for our neighbours and we have to look after our Pacific and other neighbours. But it seems every time Albanese gets on a plane and travels anywhere around the world he's actually opening up the taxpayer's wallet and handing out money to these countries, and I have a grave concern about that.</para>
<para>I also asked the question about this foundation that Nasser Mashni is involved in: could government assure the people who are putting into this fund that it's actually going to the right cause and not to the terrorists? The minister answered my question, basically, by saying, 'Look, it's the government's money.' I'm not talking about just the government's money; I'm talking about the Australian taxpayers who are putting money into this fund for a cause. The government should be ensuring that this organisation that has been set up is legitimate and above board and that the money is not being funnelled to terrorist organisations, which it's being reported could be the case.</para>
<para>Also, when I spoke about the money going to these countries, it was about struggling Australians. As far as I'm concerned, we are here to look after the Australian people first and foremost. The Australian people are struggling. They don't have homes. They don't have houses. They're living in tents. They don't have the care and attention or hospitalisation when they need it. This is where the people should be looked after first and foremost—not worrying about Tuvalu, not worrying about climate change and setting them up for the future and all the rest of it. It's about looking after our own people. That's what I'm saying. Five billion dollars a year is a lot of money that could help a lot of Australians.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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 Birmingham today relating to immigration detention.</para></quote>
<para>Minister Wong basically confirmed the worst-kept secret in the building, which is there is a stitch-up job on. That is the stitch-up job between the Labor Party and the opposition to rush through a hasty response to the High Court decision that was made this week that ruled that indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional. We will see, undoubtedly, a piece of draconian legislation that will be jammed through both houses of this parliament this week without proper scrutiny. Even worse, the government has given Mr Dutton a free pass to effectively draft this legislation for them. Mr Dutton has a horrendous record of cruelty to refugees and of trampling fundamental human rights. For Labor to now work with him to draft legislation to try to circumvent a High Court decision is nothing short of scandalous.</para>
<para>Many of the people who've already been released as a result of the High Court decision, or who will or may qualify to be released as a result of the High Court decision, are refugees. In many cases, they've already been detained for a large number of years—detention that we now know was unlawful. And what's the government doing? What is Labor doing? They are working with Mr Dutton, a man with such a horrendous track record of torturing refugees, to craft legislation to impose further arbitrary punishment on refugees. Colleagues, the rights to liberty and freedom are not absolute rights, but they are fundamental rights in any liberal democracy. Laws that remove or curtail those rights should not be delivered carelessly or hastily through this place. But that is exactly what is going to happen in the last two sitting days of this week.</para>
<para>There are critical matters that need to be considered around these laws, like: necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality; whether and what safeguards will be put in place; whether there will be any provision for judicial review to what we are being bowled up in a secret stitch-up between Mr Dutton and Mr Albanese; and whether or not these laws, which will likely take a different approach based on whether someone is a citizen or a noncitizen of this country, run counter to the notion of individualised assessment of risk. There are a range of complex, nuanced matters that this legislation will address, and we will not have enough time to consider those matters as it is jammed through the parliament.</para>
<para>Make no mistake, Prime Minister Albanese and Mr Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, are stitching up a secret collusion to jam laws through this Senate that will override or significantly curtail the liberty of many people in this country. And they're going to do it before they've even seen the reasons published by the High Court for the ruling that was revealed by the High Court earlier this week. What a disgrace. This is panicked. This is unnecessary. This is careless. This is reactionary. And it's being driven by the fear campaign stampeded by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, and his colleagues in the Senate here on the opposition benches, and by the political cowardice of the Australian Labor Party, who don't have the moral gumption to stand up and push back against a man, Mr Dutton, who has built a political career on punishing refugees and trampling all over human rights.</para>
<para>We need Labor backbenchers like Mr Khalil and Mr Burns who actually do the things they say they stand for, and that is stand up for the rights of refugees and stand up for human rights. But that's not what we're going to get, because the Labor caucus is going to roll over and let Mr Dutton tickle their tummies just as fast as the Labor leadership has.</para>
<para>This bill will be a disgrace. It will be bad for refugees, it will trample human rights and it will likely be unconstitutional and overturned by the High Court in the future.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023.</para></quote>
<para>I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The </inline> <inline font-style="italic">statements read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">BANKRUPTY AMENDMENT BILL</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2023 SPRING SITTINGS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill will prospectively and retrospectively amend the <inline font-style="italic">Bankruptcy Act 1966 </inline>(Bankruptcy Act)to clarify that a statement of affairs filed with the Official Receiver between 1992 and present day will be taken as filed when it is accepted by the Official Receiver.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to section 149 of the Bankruptcy Act, the automatic discharge of a bankruptcy is three years and one day after a statement of affairs is filed with the Official Receiver. The Australian Financial Securities Authority and its predecessors have been treating filed as the date that the statement of affairs is accepted and endorsed by the Official Receiver. However, an alternate interpretation is that discharge should occur three years after a statement of affairs is <inline font-style="italic">submitted</inline> to the Official Receiver, rather than when it is accepted. This has caused legal uncertainty for those engaging in the bankruptcy system over this period of time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Passage of the bill in the 2023 Spring sittings is required to ensure legislative clarity for bankruptcies administered since 1992 when the automatic discharge date was amended to be calculated from three years from the filing of a statement of affairs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To maintain the integrity of the personal insolvency system, it is imperative that action is taken to correct this issue and provide clarity and legal certainty by 7 December 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(Circulated by authority of the Attorney-General)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">CRIMES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (OMNIBUS NO. 2) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODCUTION AND PASSAGE     IN THE 2023 SPRING SITTING</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill will retrospectively confirm the validity of all things done in reliance on, or in relation to, an authorisation given or a determination made by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) Board to authorise a special ACIC operation or special ACIC investigation on or after 4 September 2013.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill will also make a number of amendments to crime-related provisions in commonwealth legislation to update, improve and clarify the intended operation of these provisions and improve criminal justice legislation and processes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The <inline font-style="italic">Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations Act 2022</inline> amended the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Crime Commissions Act 2002</inline> (ACC Act) to provide certainty with respect to the ACIC Board's powers to authorise special ACIC operations and special ACIC investigations. Amendments to the ACC Act are required to provide additional clarity by providing that any actions or things done in reliance on authorisations or determinations made by the Board on after 4 September 2013 are also valid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(Circulated by authority of the Attorney-General)</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023.</para></quote>
<para>I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The statements read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW SCHEME NO. 2) BILL</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2023 SPRING SITTINGS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The purpose of the Bill is to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973 </inline>to enable the Professional Services Review (PSR) to more effectively review inappropriate practice, thus improving the operations of the PSR and, in turn, supporting the integrity and ongoing sustainability of the Medicare system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill contains measures to support the integrity and sustainability of the Medicare system by addressing issues and ambiguities in the legislation relation to the PSR.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will align requirements for qualifications of PSR Committee members with the legislative definition of inappropriate practice and clarify how these requirements should be applied. This will ensure that PSR Committees can be established for a practitioner with an unusual mix of specialties where there are few exact peers or where the practitioner is providing services in a different field from their formal specialist qualifications.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Passage is required by the end of the 2023 Spring sittings to ensure the PSR can validly refer practitioners to PSR Committees for investigation before cases reach the end of their statutory timeframe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Health and Aged Care)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SUPPORTING THE TRANSITION TO WORK) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE     IN THE 2023 SPRING SITTINGS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will amend the social security law to strengthen support for the transition to employment for income support recipients, including working age payments and the Age Pension. This is consistent with the Government's commitment to supporting people to move into employment, while continuing to provide a strong, sustainable and fair social safety net.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Passage of the bill in the 2023 Spring sittings is required because the Bill will extend the temporary enhancements to the Pension Work Bonus, which currently terminate on    .31 December 2023. The Work Bonus provides financial incentives to pensioners over Age Pension age to participate in paid employment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Social Services)</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be granted to Senator Ayres from 15 to 17 November 2023, for personal reasons.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be granted to Senators Hume and Kovacic from 15 to 17 November 2023, for personal reasons.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>68</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 387 standing in my name for tomorrow.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>68</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gaza: Casualties</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That at the conclusion of formal motions today, the Senate observe a minute of silence in memory of the civilian lives lost in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This motion is another attention-seeking stunt from the Greens political party, a party that has consistently vilified Israel and voted against condemning Hamas. For the past 40 days, since the horrific terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel that killed the largest number of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust, the Greens have voted against, spoken against, walked out on or sought to drown out through chants every opportunity they've had to condemn the Hamas attack and to support Israel's right to defend itself and its citizens from terrorism, kidnapping and ongoing missile attacks.</para>
<para>Sadly, many people have died from war and conflict this year in many parts of the world. The coalition grieves for all innocent lives lost in all wars. We do not support the Greens' posturing and ask that our opposition be recorded in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will record the opposition of the opposition. I ask all senators to observe a minute's silence.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Honourable senators having observed a minute's silence—</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>68</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Home Affairs</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of Senator Paterson, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, by no later than midday on Friday, 17 November 2023, any emails, file notes, briefing materials and other written correspondence detailing the risk levels of the 92 individuals affected by the High Court decision, <inline font-style="italic">NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor</inline>, as assessed under the Community Protection Assessment Tool.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>68</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Nuclear medicine facility project.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Department of Defence—RAAF Base Darwin—Mid-term refresh.</para></quote>
<para>I table statements in relation to the works.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Perth Mint and Commonwealth Regulatory Compliance Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reporting Date</title>
            <page.no>69</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Perth Mint and Commonwealth regulatory compliance be extended to 28 March 2024.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Chisholm.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be opposing this motion. From day one this has been an inquiry that has been driven by state politics on an issue over which the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction. The committee has used the valuable and scarce resources of the Senate to hold three public hearings and receive submissions, and no new information has come to light. It's time for the committee to stop spending Senate resources and report their findings so the Senate can divert these important resources to important issues within its jurisdiction.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 390, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:48]<br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>39</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF URGENCY</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF URGENCY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are in a rental crisis with more people experiencing rental stress and unable to afford a home. The Labor government must take action by stopping unlimited rental increases."</para></quote>
<para>Is consideration of the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are in a rental crisis with more people experiencing rental stress and unable to afford a home. The Labor government must take action by stopping unlimited rental increases.</para></quote>
<para>As the motion states, we are in a rental crisis in Australia, and more and more people are experiencing rental stress and are unable to afford the basic human right of having a home to live in. This motion does call for the Labor government to take action by stopping unlimited rental increases. It is shameful that in this country renters in most places can face an unlimited number, an unlimited frequency and an unlimited scale of rent rises. In many cases, the number, the frequency and the scale of rent rises is enough to render people homeless.</para>
<para>Labor's rental crisis epitomises a broken social contract between the government and the people that it governs. Labor Housing Minister Julie Collins said the quiet thing out loud earlier this year when she said that Labor views houses as an investment and asset class in Australia. Well, I've got news for Ms Collins: houses are actually homes. Houses are homes, where people and their families build a place for themselves, buy a place for themselves or, in the case of about a third of the houses in Australia, rent a place for themselves to live. The broken social contract between this Labor government and its people represents an understanding that used to exist in Australia, where hard work, education and a reasonable job were keys to a fair crack at prosperity and a good life. This foundational belief, this foundational social contract, has been systematically dismantled by the Albanese government.</para>
<para>The plight of young Australians in particular—but not only young Australians—who rent today tells a stark story. That social contract—the one that represented an agreement, a contract that hard work, education and a reasonable job were the keys to a fair crack at a prosperous life—is broken, and no longer can it be said that hard work alone, that education alone, that a decent job alone is enough to have a good life in Australia. The new class division in this country is between people who own property and people who do not. That is the stark new class division that is emerging in this country—and it is stark and unforgiving. Those who are lucky enough—and I would suggest it's most people in this chamber, who own property—continue to prosper. Those who do not are condemned to the likelihood of a life of economic uncertainty.</para>
<para>ABS figures released today showed that wages grew by about 1.3 per cent. That is a small increase on inflation and that should be celebrated as real wage growth. But rents increased by 2.2 per cent over the same quarter. Rents are skyrocketing, and wages are not keeping up with skyrocketing rents. That is placing the dream of a home further and further out of reach for more and more people. Labor needs to act.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do have to agree with Senator McKim: we are in a rental crisis, a housing crisis, a cost-of-living crisis and an energy crisis. That, in my view, has been brought about by a very high immigration rate that is unsustainable. In the last reported quarter, the March quarter, we had 150,000 immigrants, which translates to 600,000 immigrants throughout the year, which is, interestingly enough, 200,000 more than what Labor forecast, or rather what Treasury—because they're the guys who actually run the country; overpaid muppets, but anyway—forecast. That is obviously going to increase demand.</para>
<para>The problem with price controls is that you will end up capping supply of new housing. What we've got is an inflation problem, and the cost of building is going up. Because the cost of building is going up, many builders are actually going broke and out of business, which is reducing the supply of new houses into the market. What we really need is for the RBA to get in touch with the real world and to actually use the levers available to them, not just qualitative easing, which in layman's terms is manipulating the price of money on the first Tuesday of every month. The problem with paper shuffling is, if you do too much of it for too long and you keep focused on models, you take your eye off the ball. The name of the game is to actually build things. True freedom is the child of affluence, and affluence comes from productivity. What we really need to do to fix this crisis is get people back on the tools and get them building, not just in housing but in other areas of the economy as well, such as dams, power stations, roads and factories.</para>
<para>There are two other levers I think the RBA have to look at, and I touched on this in a speech earlier this morning. One is quantitative easing. Governments have been brainwashed into thinking the only way that they can issue new capital in the system is by issuing bonds, but there is another form of capital, and that's called equity. Publicly listed corporations do this all the time: they go out and issue new capital. As a sovereign country, we can issue new capital as a means to increase supply.</para>
<para>What the RBA has done is lift interest rates—I've lost count—10 to 12 times in the last 18 months. That's had a devastating impact on demand, and it's had a devastating impact on supply. This is one of the things I get very annoyed with the RBA about, because they don't realise that increasing interest rates doesn't just dampen demand on the housing side but actually dampens supply on the housing side. It dampens supply on the small-business side. Small business, whether they're builders, bricklayers, fruit sellers, butchers or whatever, also borrow money in order to run their businesses.</para>
<para>It's alright for the big end of town: they can tap the equity markets, particularly the superannuation funds, because there's a lazy $3 trillion in cash sitting there that doesn't require work and is just managed by white-collar spivs in the ivory palaces of Sydney and Melbourne. So much for free markets, when 12 per cent of your income is taken from you and given to someone else you don't know! Actually, that's something we could do: we could make superannuation optional so that people can actually afford to buy their own homes as well.</para>
<para>The other thing I want to touch on is our macroprudential controls. In 1985 Paul Keating lifted all the capital controls. I can well remember—I was in grade 10 at the time—that was seen to be a great thing. But all that did was allow the volume of credit in the system to be controlled by foreign banks. What happened was the amount of foreign debt that the four major banks had went from $8 billion to $800 billion by 2008. Nearly all of that money was lent against housing. All that did was inflate house prices from four or five times earnings to 12 to 13 times earnings. And that, of course, when house prices went to 12 to 13 times earnings, put two parents back in the workforce, and now two parents are actually working for the foreign banks, rather than focusing on raising their children and being involved up at the school, where we desperately need more volunteers helping out with fetes and things like that. So we really need to reform our monetary system. This is a broad economy issue. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What we've seen in the debate here this afternoon is the Greens, who live in utopia, wanting to solve every problem that every person is facing. It is very noble, but the reality is that we're a party of government. The Greens never have to deliver. They can have their wish list and they can go out there and slam the government as often as they do. They play games all the time. They come in now and move a resolution in relation to renters. But when we were debating our Housing Future fund—$10 billion that the Albanese Labor government had put together to help alleviate the housing problems and the rental problems, which we are very aware of, but we are trying to find real solutions—what did they do? They stalled and they wouldn't support that legislation until they finally got a little bit more so that they could go out and do all their social media.</para>
<para>The reality is that we know we need more affordable and social housing in this country. We know there's a housing crisis. We actually know there's stress on people who are trying to make ends meet because of the difficulties we're facing with higher mortgages, rising interest rates and inflation. But what we're doing as a government, at the National Cabinet level—what we did back in August—is work with the states and territories to get a commitment to a better deal for renters, to harmonise and strengthen renters' rights across Australia.</para>
<para>But if we tried to adopt the solutions the Greens keep talking about, people outside of governments would not invest in real estate to provide that extra home stock from private investors, because they need to have a return. So, the Greens live in utopia. And unfortunately, as I've said many times in this chamber, when they could actually address some of these very serious issues, as we've seen on climate change over the years, if they don't get exactly what they want then they don't vote in support of the government of the day, which we saw when we were in government last time. As a government we're acknowledging how difficult it is out there. People of all ages are facing a crisis in relation to being able to afford a mortgage, to afford rent. And we know that homelessness is a serious issue in this country.</para>
<para>We want to address that. That's why we've done things like making sure we give more support to women and children who are fleeing domestic violence, because women cannot leave a situation if they don't have somewhere to go. So we need more housing stock so that women don't have to stay in those very dangerous circumstances. At the end of the day, every mother will put their child first each and every day of the week. That's what they do. So if they don't have social housing or affordable housing, they cannot leave that environment. It's those mothers and those children who risk their lives. That is really the issue here today. So we need affordable housing. We need social housing.</para>
<para>Instead of working with the government of the day and supporting us so we can get better outcomes, the Greens move these motions so they can get their clicks on social media, beat up on the Labor government, when in fact if they work with us we will get better outcomes, because at the end of the day we're a Labor government who actually relates to people who need our help. We believe in giving people a helping hand—a hand up, not a handout—because that's what people want; that's what Australians want. And there is no bigger threat to any individual than the threat of being homeless—young people ending up on the streets. I was in Melbourne not so very long ago, and you could not walk half a block in the city of Melbourne without seeing homeless people. There were young people, women—young women—and people that obviously have some mental health issues. They don't belong on the street. They deserve to be cared for and to have a safe, secure home. That's what we're working to provide: more social and affordable housing. So I ask the Greens to reconsider. Instead of just knocking this government, work with us.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand Senator McKim's intention with the Greens' urgency motion on the rental crisis, but, unfortunately, I cannot support it, because of basic economics. Price caps are not the answer. We all know that. They have never worked. They will never work. The Australian people are hurting because they want to see action from their government, but, unfortunately, the government is fuelling the fire of inflation with the big migration and big, wasteful spending. Rent caps may appear attractive on the surface, but they are not the solution. In fact, they'll make the problem worse. As our good friend Senator Scarr keeps saying, price caps do not work, because of basic economics. He says it all the time. If there is one rule for economic success, it should be this: do the opposite of what the Greens say or recommend.</para>
<para>Price cap policies often worsen the very problems they seek to address. This has been shown across the world, in places like Paris, Berlin and San Francisco. Overseas experience has shown that rent controls lead to many unintended consequences, including reduced supply, higher housing costs and more bureaucratic control. Forget artificial price controls; the real solution is actually very simple. Just increase supply. But how do we increase supply? That's also very simple. I'll tell you how to do it. We've got to reduce regulations on land developments and to fast-track building approvals. We must incentivise supply by eliminating unneeded taxes, duties and levies on land. Increased supply will naturally reduce rents. Socialism, unfortunately, is not the answer. It'll only lead to greater problems, a lower quality of life, higher prices on absolutely everything and a reduction in our standard of living. Make capitalism great again.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd be the first to admit that Senator Babet knows a lot more about real estate than I do, but this is a significant and important issue that is confronting the nation. Over the course of this year, I've been in every capital city of the country, and I've been in a regional town in every state as well. There's not a place I haven't gone where housing is not a significant challenge that those communities are facing. But the Greens have failed to understand the reality. The one thing they have been is consistent, but that is consistently hypocritical on this issue over a long period of time. When you think about the challenge that we face in housing, the biggest issue is supply. There's not one organisation in this country that has done more over decades to oppose more supply than the Greens. That is their record. Senator Gallagher gave a good analysis in the chamber during question time yesterday of the Greens' record when it comes to increasing supply in this country. It's a shameful record. It's not only their federal colleagues; it's also their state colleagues and councillors that are responsible for that across the country. But I'll come to that a bit later. What is so important in this, and what the federal government have been doing since we came to power, is providing the national leadership and working constructively with states and territories, because we know how important this issue is. That's what you'd expect of a federal government led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who knows that this is such an important issue for so many families.</para>
<para>So we're providing national leadership and working with all levels of government to deliver better housing outcomes. This has seen the Commonwealth, state and territory governments come together at the National Cabinet to commit to a better deal for renters which seeks to strengthen renters' rights across Australia, working in conjunction with states, which actually have some responsibilities in this regard. This includes developing a nationally consistent framework around requirements for genuine, reasonable grounds for eviction, moving towards limiting rent increases to once a year and phasing in minimum rental standards, among other changes to make rent fairer. On top of that, we've also increased the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent—the largest increase in more than 30 years. These are important steps that we are taking to support renters. But we know that there is more to do, and the community expect us to do more as well.</para>
<para>The underlying issue of affordability for buyers and renters is supply. That's why we also have a broad agenda to boost housing supply, including new incentives to boost the supply of rental housing by changing arrangements for investments in build-to-rent accommodation. We're starting to see that come to fruition now. We also have an additional $2 billion in financing for more social and affordable rental housing through Housing Australia, and the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund finally passed to help build more social and affordable rental homes in perpetuity. Independent analysis by the Grattan Institute found that our supply plan could put significant downward pressure on rents, saving renters billions over the next decade.</para>
<para>But while our government has been focused on measures that will actually support renters and boost supply, the Greens political party have been out on their own in communities actively campaigning against the supply of affordable housing. We've seen the Greens housing spokesperson, the member for Griffith, oppose residential aged-care facilities in his own electorate. We've had the Leader of the Greens, Mr Bandt, come out and oppose the Social Housing Accelerator program in his own electorate where there's a plan to replace 196 outdated and uninhabitable dwellings with 231 modern energy-efficient homes, a housing increase of at least 10 per cent on that site. We've also seen the Greens member for Ryan campaign against a plan by the Uniting Church to subdivide an old chicken farm into sites for 91 new homes. This is the record of their federal MPs just this year, let alone the damage that they have done over decades in opposing new housing supplies in many parts of the country. We know that the Greens will come in here, move motions and grandstand, but what they are actually doing practically is increasing these challenges on the housing front in many communities across the country and making it harder for councils and states to do their job.</para>
<para>That is not the approach of the federal government. We want to make sure that we're working constructively with states and with councils because we know that the key to doing this is the federal government doing their part on ensuring that we're building affordable housing while also increasing supply so that we're giving more opportunity for more homes to be built that are not only social and affordable housing but for people who want to enter the market at the same time. That is the record of this government. That is a proud one to stand by, and we're sick of the political games from the Greens.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are in a rental crisis, with more and more people experiencing severe rental stress and unable to afford a roof over their heads. Wages are crawling while rents are soaring. The rental affordability index released yesterday by peak housing body National Shelter shows that people can no longer afford to rent homes within 15 kilometres of the CBD in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. My home city of Meanjin or Brisbane is now the third most unaffordable capital in Australia for renters. Affordability has dropped by nine per cent in just the last year. The rental crisis is particularly impacting those on low incomes, with a single pensioner now having to spend 64 per cent of their income just to rent a one-bedroom home—and that's if they can find one. A single person on JobSeeker is now completely priced out of many suburbs, with the average rent taking up 106 per cent of their income—raise the rate! But it's not only people living in capital cities that are experiencing rental stress. Things are even worse in regional Queensland, which is now the least-affordable place in Australia to rent. The least-affordable suburb in regional Queensland is Eumundi, on the Sunny Coast, where a median rental of $1,050 per week costs 58 per cent of the average regional householder's income, which is almost double the threshold for housing stress.</para>
<para>We know that older women and women escaping family and domestic violence are particularly vulnerable to rental stress and homelessness. For many women escaping violence, they're choosing between staying in violence and homelessness. Jenny is a 73-year-old woman who has lived in her car for nine months because she was not able to find housing when she escaped violence. Gold Coast pensioner Gayle Fuller was on the public housing waiting list for five years and would skip buying necessities to make ends meet while she was renting. There are currently more than 3,600 people over the age of 65 that are waiting for public housing because they've been priced out of the rental market. Younger renters are also experiencing record high rental stress, combined with the fact that they're now the most financially stressed generation in the country.</para>
<para>It doesn't have to be this way. Labor could immediately ease this rental crisis by stopping unlimited rent increases. Unlimited rent hikes should be illegal. Labor have every seat bar one at National Cabinet, and they could use the National Cabinet to coordinate a rent freeze. The Greens forced this issue onto the National Cabinet agenda before we agreed to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund, but there were only marginal changes by some states on rent, and the federal government still refuse to show any leadership on rent. We will continue to call on federal Labor to incentivise the states and territories to freeze rent increases for two years, with ongoing caps after that.</para>
<para>We know that rents are now one of the key drivers of inflation, so freezing rents for two years could have not only put close to $4,000 in the pockets of renters but helped control inflation at the same time. At a time when everyone is counting every single dollar, that would be a life-saving cost-of-living measure.</para>
<para>I want to compare that with the PBO costing of the subsidies that property developers get in negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. Property investors get $39 billion of public money in tax concessions this year alone, while renters are having to pay $4.9 billion extra in rent because Labor have decided that they're going to lock in unlimited yearly rent increases. Thirty-nine billion dollars to property developers and nothing for renters? We will keep fighting for a freeze and a cap on rent increases and for more billions of dollars for more public and affordable housing. Get it done. It is your responsibility.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Waters. Senator Roberts.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We agree with part of this Greens matter of urgency—that we are in a rental crisis, with more people experiencing rental stress and unable to afford a home due to Labor government policies and deceit. We disagree on how to fix it. There's absolutely nothing that can be done to fix the housing and rental crisis until we cut the absolutely insane numbers of overseas arrivals this government is letting into our country. Excluding tourists and short-stay visa holders, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country right now. Every single one of them needs a roof over their head, and that's leading to record house prices and the lowest rental vacancy rate in history. Housing is tight and therefore expensive. It's impossible to build enough houses or freeze enough prices to fix the housing problem until this immigration tidal wave is cut. What the Greens propose is going to increase rental costs. Instead of putting banks and big business first, put people first.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Allman-Payne.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are in a rental crisis that is spiralling out of control. There is little else that cuts to the core of the cost of living like being unable to afford the roof over your head, the most basic right to shelter. Renters around this country are at their breaking point, and the Labor government have committed to unlimited rent rises. They must wear the burden of the rental crisis. The new rental affordability index, as my colleague Larissa Waters has said, shows that rental affordability has continued to worsen, particularly in regional areas.</para>
<para>Our home state of Queensland is now home to the least affordable regional areas in Australia. The average rental household in regional Queensland is in rental stress. Let me be clear: if you are a renter in the regions, you are more likely than not to be in rental stress. This is an abhorrent crisis, facilitated and rubber-stamped by the major parties. We have given our housing system over to property developers and banks. Rents going up is the system working by design. Skyrocketing rents are the outcome of the Albanese government picking the side of developers and not renters.</para>
<para>This is only the beginning of a web of problems. What does the Labor government expect to happen to these renters when, in the midst of one of the hottest summers on record, they're going to be forced to scramble for homes amidst skyrocketing rents? How do they expect these people to be able to pay for basic amenities like air conditioning, power and fans? This rental crisis will worsen in ways that the Labor government is unwilling to accept. I know firsthand that renters in regional Queensland are struggling. In my office in Gladstone, I put out a community pantry every day, full of the most basic essentials needed to survive. Every single day, tens of people coming to and from the department of housing, which is upstairs, empty it out. These are just the basic necessities: milk, tinned beans, rice, tampons, toothpaste, flour. This is a grievous failing of the Labor government and of all MPs across the state. What else is there to being in government than providing the most basic needs of survival to everyone—than affording everyone in this country the basic necessities and dignity? Last week, Labor prioritised rushing through legislation to benefit big corporations like Santos, INPEX and Woodside. Where is the Labor government's urgency for rushing through legislation for the people across Australia who will sleep in their cars tonight?</para>
<para>Recently, my office was contacted by a constituent who has been sleeping on the kitchen floor of their parents' granny flat. The family fled persecution to come to Australia 12 years ago and they have been waiting for public housing for 10 years. This constituent has been supporting their elderly parents but they can no longer work due to injury. Added to that, they're struggling, along with their parents, from the trauma of their circumstances and refugee status. The flat has no laundry facilities or working cooking facilities. To make do, they are using a temporary gas cooktop and bottle, at extreme risk to their health from carbon monoxide poisoning. For this they're paying $660 a fortnight. That is completely unacceptable. It is completely unacceptable for people in this country to be forced to live like this. The Greens refuse to walk past the reality of people living in Australia and ignore the struggle of their circumstances.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chair is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:25]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>12</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>23</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Davey, which has also been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Labor Government's policies are driving up the cost of living while driving down confidence in the farming sector and failing to keep farmers farming.</para></quote>
<para>Is consideration of the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The proposal before us is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Labor Government's policies are driving up the cost of living while driving down confidence in the farming sector and failing to keep farmers farming.</para></quote>
<para>With the cost-of-living crisis smashing Australian families, relief is urgently needed. The last thing any government should do is introduce policies that have the potential to exacerbate the problem. What government would implement policies that have the potential to stop our farmers farming, add to the cost of production, make homegrown produce less competitive than cheap imports, and deliberately make food and fibre more expensive? More importantly, what government would implement such policies without a comprehensive understanding of the impact of them? Well, as we found out in question time today, this government would. This government is banning live exports. This government is failing to introduce a dedicated visa pathway for agricultural workers. This government is pursuing renewable energy projects and transmission lines across prime agricultural land and introducing punitive industrial relations reforms that will hurt farmers.</para>
<para>But probably most egregious of all is this government's policies to reintroduce water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin. Irrigated agriculture is a key mitigation tool in dealing with the extremes of climate change. It is one of the best tools to cope with increasing droughts punctuated by floods. Capturing water during floods and using it to grow food and fibre during the dry times is key to providing an economic base for many agriculturally dependent communities and businesses.</para>
<para>Tonight politicians across the spectrum will get the opportunity to savour a taste of the basin, with food and fibre producers from across the Murray-Darling Basin bringing their goods to parliament, and I welcome some of those producers in the chamber today, listening to this debate. This event has been organised by basin based MPs and senators to highlight the vital role the Murray-Darling Basin plays in the production of food and fibre. There will be a wide variety of produce, including wine, dairy, fantastic Australian rice from my home town of Deniliquin, fruits, nuts, and cotton—all of which are dependent on irrigation.</para>
<para>But there is another motive for these producers coming here to showcase their wares, and it's the motive of having the opportunity to tell politicians firsthand how important our rivers are to food and fibre production, from Queensland to South Australia and everywhere in between, because it is our nation's food bowl. They want the opportunity to talk about the impact of buybacks, because we know from question time today that this government hasn't modelled the impacts. No regulatory impact statement is provided with the water amendment bill that we are going to be asked to vote on in the Senate in the near future. The consultation on that bill consisted of a webinar and less than a handful of invite-only consultation sessions that the department carried out. And the minister has barely set down on the basin.</para>
<para>Unlimited water buybacks will impact our productivity and will make food in Australia more expensive, leading to greater pressure from imported products from countries that don't have a government actively working against food and fibre producers. Make no mistake: everyone wants a healthy river, including our food and fibre producers. But they also want and need healthy industries and communities and to provide the jobs across the supply chain to get our food to the supermarket, to your table. And a healthy working river is about more than flow, yet we have a basin plan that is a one-trick pony, with water recovery the only tool to improve environmental outcomes. We need more than water recovery from the productive pool to ensure that we have working rivers and healthy working communities. Thank you. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I look forward to making my contribution on this matter of public importance from Senator Davey, and I must say at the outset that I have the greatest respect for Senator Davey. She is from the land. I know your passion—but you're not the only one. I'm just saying that, Senator Davey, because for the last 18 years that I've been here I have, as you know, chaired—either in opposition, for 15 of the 18 years, or in government—the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. And I must say I've been a massive supporter of Australia's food and fibre producers and processors for all those years, and it's been an interesting journey. But for those listening out there, you'd think that we're the worst thing that ever happened to the farmers, so I just want to give you a balance. In my humble opinion, thank goodness we had a change of government.</para>
<para>I believe that the Albanese government has been the greatest saviour of the agriculture industry because—I'm not having a crack at my colleagues over the bench, but I have to say this—a lot of the fantastic food that we develop in this nation had hit a brick wall in trade. Let's not fool each other: trade, to the Australian agriculture and horticulture industries, is paramount. We know we export some 70 per cent of our food and fibre and also our seafood. We know we import just as much of the seafood, as well. But seriously, with the greatest of respect to my colleague Senator Davey, damage had been done to our trade with our largest trading partner, China, so that the opposing minister from China wouldn't even take the Australian minister's phone calls. How bad is that—the largest trading partner we had! Let's not fool ourselves: farmers were in pain. Fortunately, the grown-ups have come into government. I'm happy to take criticism—if you can find it, throw it at me, no worries. But we saw the destruction of our barley trade, the crayfish, the wine and the timber. Now we're on the way back, and now we have a grown-up relationship with China that has been managed by adults. Fortunately, we're starting to get trade going across to China, and thank goodness for that.</para>
<para>I have to say this, too, as someone who does know the price of diesel: the other day I heard one of my colleagues from the other side of the chamber make one of the most ridiculous statements, saying that the Labor Party government makes up all this stuff about the war in Ukraine putting up prices. Ladies and gentlemen, before Russia's illegal invasion into Ukraine, diesel was coming at around $1.80, I can tell you. Six months before that, when I was fueling up at Port Hedland, it was about $1.50, and it kept climbing. Whether some believe this or not—and I don't know how it all works, because we've still got plenty of fuel; I don't know if the fuel companies are having a bit of fun here too—the cost of diesel is $2.30 to $2.50, depending on what part of Western Australia you are in.</para>
<para>I'm from the trucking industry, but the last time I looked the agriculture industry relies on trucking and relies on diesel just as much as we do in the trucking industry. It's the cost of doing business. Let's not forget that about two years ago the previous government, Mr Morrison and co, were caught asleep at the wheel. For those who don't know, we had a diesel additive called AdBlue. All of a sudden we had a massive shortage of AdBlue in this nation, and the transport and agriculture industries were doing somersaults. Fortunately, now we've put that to bed. There's stability there. These are true costs. You're shaking your head, Senator McDonald, like it's not a true cost. Well, I tell you it is a true cost.</para>
<para>I know that the trucks bring it into the farms. I have the greatest respect for our farmers and our horticulturists. I know how it all starts: we bring in the fuel, we bring in the seed, we bring in the fertiliser, we bring in the equipment. It's not all done by farmers themselves; it's the trucking industry. When our export markets are booming, I know who carts it out. It's our trucks. We're the ones who pick it up from the farms and we're the ones who pick up the meat and all that sort of stuff. We're the ones that take it into the cities. We're the ones that take it to the rail or to the ports. The product has probably been on the back of a truck six, seven or eight times before it ends up on your table. So I think we have to tell some truths, and that gets overlooked.</para>
<para>I respect Senator Davey's knowledge of water. I get all that. This has been an ongoing problem for years. When I first walked into this building back in 2005, we were in an arm wrestle with the Howard government. And it wasn't our plan; it was your plan. You had the Basin Plan, and you still couldn't get it right. We've got to tell some truths.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What we heard there from Senator Sterle was, 'If you've got something, throw it at me.' Well, here I am. Get ready to catch! It's a two-trick pony. We talk about China. We talk about how great it is for farmers that we've got China. We're suckling on the teat of China as our one trick in trade. The other one is we're talking about trucks and truckies and their great input costs. We won't have things to put on the trucks. We won't need truck drivers, because we won't be able to grow anything with the way this government is going.</para>
<para>The role of government is to look after its people and its national interest and its security first, and this government is not doing that. This government is looking after other interests. We go out there in the world and we say: what are we going to do about our Pacific island friends? We need to do something for them, so we're going to change the visa regime for farm workers. We do that for our Pacific island friends—I get it—but not for our farmers. They can't use the same thing of foreign workers on their land. They can't hire the same people. They can't have the same arrangements. We'll just do that—we'll just look after that there.</para>
<para>We talk about what we're going to do for the world on climate change. We're going to take their land. We're just going to put some transmission lines here. We're going to put some solar farms here. We're going to put some wind farms there. We'll just take a bit of their land; the farmers will be alright with that. That won't be a problem. It's bit by bit by bit. What are we going to do with water? Oh, we have to have more water flowing to meet our obligations. We'll just take a bit of water off them here. The farmers will be fine with that. It's not a problem. Oh, we need offset zones, so what do we do? We'll allow companies to buy zones and put these zones on this land and those zones there. Farmers will be okay with that. It's death by a thousand cuts.</para>
<para>No-one is keeping up on all of these things—on their staff, on their water, on their lands and on their productivity—'Oh, you can't use this method now. You can't grain feed this. You can't do that.' In this building, we think we know better than the people that actually grow things, make things and build things. That's the No. 1 problem here, and it's the problem with this government. No-one is keeping up with these things that have all been done in the last 18 months. I think we were in estimates when the trade minister was saying, 'What a great deal we've done for farmers in this country.' It's not. The price of protein now shows that. The meatworks can't get enough meat workers to slaughter the meat. They can sell more meat, but they can't kill enough meat to keep the protein prices down.</para>
<para>All of these things are happening because of the decisions made by this government. When we sit here on this side and say, 'Can we have an inquiry to look at transmission lines and the effect they have?' the response is: 'No, we can't do that. We don't want to know the problems. We don't want to own up to the problems. We don't want to do this. We want to stop the people that feed this nation and feed the region.'</para>
<para>If you want to do something that helps Australia and helps the region both at once, let's make agriculture better so we can feed everyone. We're good at it. Our farmers are great at it. They care for the land. It's their asset. It's their livelihood. They've been on it for so long. Let them have their way and keep farmers farming because that's what they deserve to do. They look after their animals because it's in their interest. They look after their crops because it's in their interest. They look after their land because it's in their interest. But here we go—we know better. And it's not just that side; it's not just this side. It is this opinion that across the world we know better than the people who actually do things. We don't want to talk to them. We don't want to inquire about it. We don't want to hear their stories.</para>
<para>Down at Henty ute muster, I was told a New South Wales farmer's story. He has solar farms on three sides of him. He has a half-billion-dollar investment around him. How great is that for the region? It's a great investment. What can this farmer not do? He can't get public liability insurance anymore. His neighbours have half a billion dollars worth of equipment, so he can't get public liability insurance, because if there's a fire—his tractor starts something up or he's burning off and goes away—he burns half a billion dollars worth of other stuff. These are the added-on layers upon layers upon layers of new government policy that means that all we'll be exporting in 50 years will be pollution and jobs. There won't be food. There won't be manufacturing. There won't be this.</para>
<para>Australia is a lucky country because we got in and we did things. We trusted our people to do things well and they did. This government, this parliament, should be out there backing our people, letting them be the best they can be—and Australian farmers are the best—and feeding the people of the region. Every bit we do hurts that. Every bit that we restrict them costs Australian people in cities more for their food. Everything we do to restrict them means they aren't as innovative as they could be and Australia is less productive. Let them have their head, and keep farmers farming.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I find it absolutely incredible that any of those opposite have the temerity to want to debate the cost of living when they all live in glass houses. First of all, they've opposed every measure put forward in our $23 billion cost-of-living package, a package that was carefully calibrated to ease the pressure on households without adding to inflation. Then they tell us that we're spending too much, even when we're delivering the first surplus in 15 years. Remember that it was the coalition that gave this country a trillion dollars in debt, with nothing to show for it. And then, finally, they tell us that we should be doing better when it comes to wages, yet they've opposed every measure we've put forward to get wages moving again.</para>
<para>Those opposite appear to have the memories of goldfish. They must have forgotten that when they were in government they openly admitted to deliberately keeping wage growth low. It was, to quote the then finance minister, 'a deliberate feature of our economic architecture'. Remember that? Then there is their criticism of us for inflation, but once again the opposition have got very short memories. The inflation challenge that we are dealing with was inherited from the previous government. Those opposite are very good at sniping. All they seem to be capable of doing is sniping, yet they did nothing to ease the pressure on struggling households, whether those households were in cities or rural or regional areas. They opposed almost every measure we put forward to ease that pressure, so we know that this situation would be a lot worse if they are still in government.</para>
<para>In fact, talking about farmers and the impact on farmers, let's look at just one thing that they did for farmers when they were in government because they do not do all that much. They made lots of announcements and appeared in the media and on TV a lot, but they didn't actually do all that much. There is one thing I must admit they did do. The former government cut the federal biosecurity budget by about $100 million per year. They were happy to jeopardise our biosecurity system, a system that I must remind people is critical to the prosperity of industry and obviously farmers. I don't think they were actually working in the farmers' interests. But we on this side do understand that, just like other businesses and households, our primary producers are also facing a series of challenges, including the collapsing livestock prices caused by oversupply due to impending dry conditions.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is committed to protecting and growing Australia's agricultural industry. But it is pretty rich, as I have said, that we are being lectured by the Nationals in the opposition on driving down confidence in the sector after the mess that they left behind from their decade in government. The opposition have been demanding to know why, after 18 months in government, we have not cleaned up the mess that they built over 10 years—their neglect, their incompetence. I am happy to remind those opposite of their record because they seem to be suffering from some sort of collective amnesia, not only forgetting that they created the mess but that they tried to stand in the way of our efforts to clean it up. As I said, I think they live in glass houses. But they still insist on throwing too many stones. The next time the opposition want to lecture us about the cost of living, I suggest they take a very long, hard look in the mirror.</para>
<para>Let's look at some of the elements of the cost of living. Housing: they spent a decade doing nothing to create affordable housing while waiting lists went through the roof. But then they voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. Child care: costs went up by 28 per cent, and so once again it fell to Labor to make child care cheaper for 1.2 million families. Power bills: they had over 20 different energy policies in the 10 years that they were in government. That chaos and confusion led to increasing electricity prices, including increases they took deliberate steps to hide on the eve of an election, even going so far as to change the regulations to hide this fact. They also voted against our energy bill relief for millions of homes and businesses. Now let's talk about health care. They froze Medicare rebates for years and caused bulk-billing rates to fall. We have tripled the bulk-billing incentive and made medicine cheaper, a measure they threatened to oppose. Their record in government and their record for the past year and a half in opposition show their feigned concern for the pressures on households is little more than lip-service. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's policies are not only driving up inflation and making the housing crisis worse but also a direct attack on Australia's farmers and our world-leading agricultural industries. Labor will soon introduce legislation that will risk food and fibre production in the Murray-Darling Basin, which is valued at more than $20 billion per year. Labor has chopped water security projects like the Hells Gates Dam in Queensland, and these are critical for our food security. Australia is already a net food importer and has been for many years. In 2021 the deficit grew to $7 billion, and according to the Bureau of Statistics food imports have grown by almost five per cent every year since 1980. Most of these imports come from countries with much lower quality standards and poorer land stewardship credentials, like China, Vietnam and Indonesia. Labor's obsession with climate change is destroying prime agricultural land, with transmission lines, wind farms and solar panels contaminating the land with heavy metals. It's attacking our livestock farmers by forcing them to account for methane emissions while New Zealand excludes its agriculture from carbon accounting.</para>
<para>In 2019 Labor voted for my Protecting Australian Dairy Bill, but, since coming to power, it has done nothing for an industry still in crisis. Of course, Labor aims to end the live export trade, which supports thousands of jobs in regional Australia. Labor continues to pursue bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements that force Australia's farmers to the bottom end of a very uneven playing field. Labor is chopping infrastructure projects that are a vital part of our food supply chains, increasing costs for both farmers and consumers. Labor must end its offensive against Australia's farmers in the best interests of our nation and its people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak on this very important matter of public importance and congratulate Senator Davey for moving this issue to the forefront of our debate. We on this side of the chamber—people like Senator Davey, and I'd throw myself into the category as well—actually come from the bush. We come from regional Australia, and we're here to represent regional Australia. I was born in the small country town of Manjimup in the south of Western Australia, and my family have farmed in Pemberton for over 150 years. That gives us linkage. That gives us knowledge. That gives us ties. That gives us a care for regional Australia, for the bush. The trouble for Labor is that they simply don't have that. Senator Sterle is someone on the other side who I do admire and who does have a genuine affinity for the bush. But I think Senator Sterle looks to his left and looks to his right and says, 'There's nobody else.' In fact, we've heard the minister for agriculture in this place try and defend Labor's linkages to agriculture—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not fair. My parents were farmers too.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and we get that kind of interjection: 'My mother's second cousin twice removed once visited a farm.' That's Labor's link to the bush. They simply do not understand regional Australia, so they cannot represent it in this place.</para>
<para>Lake Grace is a small county town in Western Australia where the current price of unleaded is over $2 a litre and diesel is $2.36 a litre. These are families that need petrol in the tanks of their cars just to live their lives. They live hundreds and hundreds of kilometres from a major centre. They live in a very isolated part of this great continent and of our great state. In a major centre like Geraldton, which has a population in excess of 60,000, I think—Senator Smith might correct me—it is $1.95 for unleaded and $2.13 for diesel. In Onslow, further north—admittedly a bit more remote again—it is $2.42 for unleaded and $2.35 for diesel. These are people that need to fill their tanks. It's not an optional extra; it's life. The cost-of-living pressures on Australians living in regional Australia are even more heightened than they are on those living in the city. We understand the pain that those in the city are feeling, but those in the bush are feeling it even more.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is absolutely appalling that we are seeing the perfect storm of rising cost of living and rising food prices thanks to the complete disaster that this Albanese Labor government is for agriculture right across Australia. When Senator Cadell was speaking about the layer upon layer of outrageous antifarming policies, it reminded me of a Sara Lee cake—the Sara Lee policy construction for anti-agricultural policies.</para>
<para>I'm going to start in the north of the country, in my country, where every bit of water funding has been ripped out. One of the first actions of the Minister for the Environment and Water was to take back every planned water policy. It didn't matter whether it was a dam, a pipeline, small, large, because they hate dams and they hate farmers in the north. To make matters worse, they took that funding—$6 billion, Senator Davey?—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Davey</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and walked it down to the Murray-Darling to rip that out of agricultural production in the southern part of the country. Just to be clear, that will be over a hundred thousand hectares of intensive agricultural land. If you don't think that's going to mean less fruit and veggies on your table then you are mistaken. It means, Senator Sterle, that there will be fewer trucks driving around with produce that comes from our food bowl in the south and ends up on people's tables right across the country.</para>
<para>Those opposite have planned to ban live sheep exports out of Western Australia, smashing that market. It was devastating to listen to ABARES make excuse after excuse about how they'd examined the impact of the live export decision on prices but not be able to demonstrate one bit of data they'd extracted that was relevant to the Western Australian situation.</para>
<para>They have failed to support the dedicated visa pathway for agricultural workers that the Liberal-National coalition announced before the last election. If there is one thing that farmers across the country talk to me about, it's the workforce shortage—how they can't get suitably qualified people. The agricultural visa would have provided them.</para>
<para>The renewable energy transmission line projects across highly productive agricultural farming country are a disgrace. They have been poorly planned, and the Labor government will not allow us to have a Senate inquiry into them. What are they trying to hide?</para>
<para>We're going to see more changes to the EPBC Act, and you can guarantee they won't be about protecting farmers and maintaining productive land use. In the north, where bushfires are raging, nobody is able to clear a firebreak. What is happening to farmers and graziers in the northern part of the country is absolutely appalling.</para>
<para>What about the industrial relations impacts? Last week we saw rolling stoppages at abattoirs. Chains stopped because the CPSU in Canberra feel they need a pay rise, but what does that mean for graziers who can't get their stock in to be slaughtered? It means lower prices for them again.</para>
<para>We've seen the banning of gillnet fishing. This is a personal favourite. In North Queensland, we have gillnet fishermen who will lose their livelihoods, starting this December. Merry Christmas, fishermen in North Queensland! When you can't buy wild-caught barramundi or wild-caught grey mackerel, Mr Acting Deputy President, say thanks very much to this Labor government for the secret, sneaky deal that Tanya Plibersek, the minister for environment, has done with UNESCO. It is somehow going to save the Great Barrier Reef. I must send the environment minister a map, because the Gulf of Carpentaria is nowhere near the Great Barrier Reef. That doesn't seem to matter. It does mean that it will cost more to buy wild-caught fish—if you can get it.</para>
<para>There's the cost of electricity. I see graziers with electricity bills that would make your eyes water. An 82 per cent renewables target—what rubbish!</para>
<para>They have not signed a trade deal since they've been in government. It was the coalition that, during its last period in office, took agricultural products from 25 per cent to 85 per cent under a trade deal. That allowed farmers to get better prices, more scale. This government, the Labor government, hates farmers. They hate the regions and they certainly don't support lower food prices for Australians. It's shocking.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I love farmers. That's a lie!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Pratt, that's not helpful. Interjections are disorderly. Senator Scarr has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order: Senator Pratt should withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order: I will not withdraw. Senator McDonald said, 'You hate farmers.' I love them, and that's a notorious lie.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pratt, it was a reference not to any senator specifically. It would assist the chamber, Senator Pratt, if you could just withdraw, please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Pratt.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! It's a nice day, everybody.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Healthcare Workers</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is leave granted? I'm just looking at the whips. Senator Faruqi, what I might do, just to assist the smooth running of the chamber, is place you on hold for a moment. I or another acting deputy president will come back to you after the whips get instructions so we don't cause unnecessary delay.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scrutiny of Bills Committee</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Scrutiny Digest</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present <inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny digest</inline> No. 14 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The statement read as follows—</inline></para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The statement was unavailable at the time of publishing.</inline></para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>81</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the 501st report—that's a lot of them—of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts of Audit, together with a corrigendum to the 500th report. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Healthcare Workers</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to try this again. I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>81</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to take note of the tabling of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit annual report. As the deputy chair of this committee, I'd just like to acknowledge a number of things. This year the committee has again been very busy, and it does vitally important work on behalf of the parliament and the Australian people. This year the committee's work included reviewing Australian National Audit Office reports, audit priorities of the parliament, and recommendations to government on the budget estimates of the Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office. In 2022-23, the committee met 29 times and held 18 public hearings. The committee commenced eight inquiries and presented five reports as well as undertaking a range of other non-inquiry activities pursuant to its statutory duties. The committee's inquiries in 2022-23 included Foreign Affairs and Trade's crisis management arrangements, administration of Commonwealth grants, the 2021-22 Commonwealth financial statements, and Defence major projects.</para>
<para>In conclusion, can I thank the committee's incredibly capable, hardworking and very busy staff, very ably led by Ms Jenny Adams, the committee secretary. I also thank Dr Fiona Allen, Ms Kathleen McGarry, Dr Kilian Perrem, Dr Ashley Stephens, Mr Peter Pullen, Mr Laurence Hunt, Ms Laura Trobbiani, who is an ANAO secondee, and Ms Se Eun Lee, who's also from ANAO. It was another very busy year on this committee. I thank all the committee members and I particularly very warmly thank all the committee secretariat staff. Thank you. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Heathcare Workers</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Third time lucky, hopefully! I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a non-conforming petition of 2,222 Australian healthcare workers who, amongst other things, call for an immediate cessation to the bombing and siege of Gaza.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>82</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia's International Environment Leadership</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water, I table the annual statement on international environment leadership.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>The statement tabled by the minister made for a very interesting read in relation to international environmental leadership. I don't think there are many people in this place or the other place who would think that, over the last 18 months, this government has shown leadership in the environment space. This portfolio, sadly, has seen, as a result of I'm not sure whether it is ineptitude or a lack of interest from the minister, a huge amount of underwhelming performance. The delays on everything related to the environment portfolio have meant that Australia and the Australian community, from environmental groups and ordinary mums and dads who actually care about our environment through to those who seek to do business in the environment, are wondering what is going on. There's a lack of certainty, a lack of urgency and a lack of direction which are causing incredible concern across all parts of our community, something that I hope the government takes notice of.</para>
<para>Over 18 months, we have seen many promises that were made by this government, be they on power prices or any other important issue, being broken, and in this portfolio it is no different. I do recall, over a year ago now, when the minister, on the release of the state of the environment report, outlined what the government would do in response to the state of the environment report. It also released its response to the Samuel review, which, of course, is on reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act. At the time we were told we did not have a minute to lose—that this was incredibly urgent. But 18 months on, sadly, we are no clearer on exactly what the government is going to be doing.</para>
<para>Only recently, on 30 and 31 October, a select group of Australian stakeholders, including businesses, ENGOs and other people who have been a part of the process to date, gathered here in Canberra to have a look at what the government has done about reforming these laws in responding to the review. We must remember that the EPBC Act is in excess of 1,000 pages of legislation. What was presented on 30 and 31 October—in these secret, closed-door meetings to which no-one outside of that select group was invited—were a few pages with some principles. This is 18 months on, and that is all we have. There is absolutely no clarity. It does expose for what it is the claim that we didn't have a minute to lose, and, also that this government was taking this portfolio seriously, because I don't think anyone could claim that and keep a straight face.</para>
<para>In the statement, one of the claims made by the minister, one that the minister wants us to believe, is that there is a nature repair market which is bringing new funding to the work of protecting and restoring our environment. The nature repair market legislation is nowhere to be seen. It went off to a Senate committee for inquiry, and it was difficult to find a solitary stakeholder, be they from the environment portfolio, ENGOs or the business sector—anywhere—that supported the legislation as it was drafted. The committee report has been pushed back and pushed back. Last time I checked, the committee wasn't going to be reporting back until the month of April next year. That is something that we're being told in this ministerial statement is there and is going to be contributing to the good work of this government in saving the environment. The bill as it was drafted and as it stands today is botched and, sadly, is another example of how little attention is being paid to such an important part of what this government should be focusing on.</para>
<para>When it comes to matters Antarctic—and only this morning in this building we had a group of Antarctic scientists converge on Canberra to brief us on matters related to sea ice—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCarthy</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We went to Antarctica.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I didn't get to go to Antarctica, sadly I respond to Senator McCarthy. I missed out on that trip. It would have been wonderful to see. But I live near there. Hobart is very close to Antarctica. I don't know how I went down that path! I got drawn into that. Interjections are terribly disorderly, and so is responding to them.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She draws you in!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are quite right, Senator Scarr.</para>
<para>Antarctic sea ice is shrinking, as we know. The scientists, from a range of institutions based out of Hobart, were today telling us exactly what is going on. But where is the minister when it comes to dealing with the funding shortfall and pressures being faced by the Australian Antarctic Division, a world-leading institution? I would love to know exactly how the minister intends to respond to these issues, when science and research funding for Antarctic science is so critically compromised. The minister can't, in her statement, talk about leadership in the environmental space when this government is letting us down and not providing leadership in any way in that space.</para>
<para>Back on the EPBC Act: I understand the minister said that, as it stands today, there is a doubling of the rate of renewable projects being approved under the EPBC Act. But, in saying that, she failed to highlight the fact that the timeliness of approvals under this act has dramatically declined in her time in charge. There is no talk from the minister, either, in relation to what the government is going to do when it comes to its dreadful track record on endangered species, many of them under further pressure because of a number of these renewable projects that the government is seeking to speed up the approvals process of.</para>
<para>We'll all recall that Minister Plibersek did make a commitment that there would be zero new extinctions under this government. That was what she committed to. Well, the minister—and I have offered her this advice previously—might want to go and speak to some people who might know about this, such as Conservation Volunteers Australia, who uncovered that, in the last two years, Australia has listed more threatened species than in the previous decade. The government suffer from 'rear-vision-mirror-itis'—they like to look backward at the last decade—but they might want to look at their time in government and exactly what has been happening over the last two years.</para>
<para>Short of meeting this commitment to zero new extinctions, there is a lot of work and no action relating to her commitment to protecting endangered species. There is no action when it comes to plastic waste and dealing with the REDcycle crisis that we had—zero response to that. There is no new EPA, which we were promised. There is no new standalone tough cop on the beat to protect our environment and work with businesses to ensure they're doing the right thing. There is no acknowledgement of the fact that the 30x30 Pledge, to protect 30 per cent of land and sea by 2030, was already met when it came to the marine environment. Before the minister even became minister, we were at 43 per cent of the target. There is no reference to the unilateral decision to ban gillnets in certain fisheries in northern Australia and what impact that will have. There is no willingness to provide evidence for the decision that was made in response to UNESCO's calls and no interest in the impact that will have on these regional communities—a very, very sad indictment. There has been no response to the questions about the trebling of the size of the Macquarie Island marine protected area and the fact that a decision was made before consultation had even closed. That is something I was very alarmed about and continue to investigate, because these decisions are having serious impacts.</para>
<para>When you make decisions with only one thing in mind—the environment—with no regard for other things like the economy and social welfare, you are going to have bad decisions. There is no mention of this taxpayer funding being provided to the Environmental Defenders Office, at the base of so many of the disastrous appeals of projects that we need to be able to continue to have a functioning economy in the cost-of-living crisis we are facing. There is no mention or acknowledgement of the fact that this government is funding a lot of the green lawfare we are seeing that is destroying people's lives, jobs and investment opportunities and causing sovereign risk issues.</para>
<para>All in all, this ministerial statement papers over many cracks, but the facts are speaking for themselves. From the ENGO movement right through to the business community, this portfolio is in tatters and people want and expect better.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>83</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Home Affairs</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning immigration detention.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>83</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7080" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 (the Bill) will amend the <inline font-style="italic">Interactive Gambling Act 2001 </inline>(the Act) to ban the use of credit cards and credit related products for online wagering—to create a safer environment for Australians at risk of gambling harm.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In April 2023, the Government committed to introduce legislation to ban the use of credit cards for online wagering by the end of this year. This Bill delivers on this promise.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia has the highest gambling losses per adult, with a total of $25 billion in losses per annum. Online gambling is growing in Australia due to easier and faster access through mobile devices and a proliferation of online gambling applications.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A ban on the use of credit cards and credit related products for online wagering will have the immediate and effective impact of stopping people from gambling with money they do not have.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There is clear support for a ban on the use of credit for online wagering. Research released by the banking peak body, the Australian Banking Association, has found that over 80 per cent of Australians believe gambling with credit cards should be restricted or banned. This Bill will mean you can't use credit for online wagering—which is consistent with land-based gambling regulations which ban the use of credit in TAB outlets, casinos and poker machine venues.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will prohibit the use of credit cards for Australian licensed interactive wagering services, and the use of credit cards linked to a digital wallet or e-wallet such as Apple Pay and Google Pay.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will also prohibit the use of digital currencies as a payment method for interactive wagering services. This mitigates the risk that individuals could purchase cryptocurrency using a credit card and then use these funds to bet online. As a way of 'future proofing' these protections, the Bill will allow the responsible Minister by legislative instrument to proscribe new credit payment products that might be used to circumvent the ban as they emerge.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will also expand the Australian Communications and Media Authority's compliance and enforcement powers by providing ACMA with the ability to receive enforceable undertakings and issue remedial directions in respect of the civil penalty provisions under the Act. This provides ACMA with the means to enforce undertakings—for example when an entity commits to appoint an independent auditor to review its systems and procedures and provide recommendations for improvement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalties up to $234,750<inline font-style="italic">[1]</inline> may apply for any breach of the new provisions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There will be a 6 month transition period from the date of Royal Assent to give industry time to change business practices and for people to change their betting behaviour.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill implements recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services from November 2021, which called on the Government to ban online gambling service providers from accepting payment by credit cards, including digital wallets.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Consistent with the Inquiry's recommendations, which found that lotteries present a lower risk of gambling harm, the Bill does not apply to lotteries, including the activities of not-for-profits, charities and newsagents.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill requires a review after 2 years from commencement to assess the effectiveness of the new provisions. A report of the review must be tabled in both Houses of the Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Consultation on this Bill was undertaken with a wide range of stakeholders including harm reduction advocates, wagering and lottery providers, and banking and payment organisations. I would like to take the opportunity to thank these stakeholders for their contributions and support for this Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill aligns with the Government's broader commitment to minimising gambling harms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government recently launched BetStop—the National Self-Exclusion Register for online wagering, which allows people to self-exclude from all telephone and online gambling for 3 months up to a lifetime. The Register is the final measure of the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Other measures recently implemented include:</para></quote>
<list>since March 2023—the introduction of 7 new evidence-based advertising taglines to replace the old 'gamble responsibly' wording;</list>
<list>a requirement for monthly activity statements to provide consumers with meaningful statements of their online wagering activity; and</list>
<list>introducing nation-wide staff training to give staff tools to assist a consumer when they are identified as potentially experiencing harm from gambling.</list>
<quote><para class="block">We are also working with state and territory governments to update the classification rules for online and video games to protect children from exposure to simulated gambling.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is currently considering the comprehensive recommendations handed down by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs' inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We look forward to working with stakeholders to inform the Government response to these recommendations and implement further actions to reduce gambling harms in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">[1]</inline>As at 1 September 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the Bill.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7079" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7082" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speeches read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">DISABILITY SERVICES AND INCLUSION BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Introduction</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I move that this Bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Today I am introducing the <inline font-style="italic">Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 </inline>(the Bill) and immediately after this will introduce the <inline font-style="italic">Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 </inline>(Consequential and Transitional Bill), which together will repeal and replace the <inline font-style="italic">Disability Services Act 1986 </inline>(Disability Services Act).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill, along with the Consequential and Transitional Bill will help deliver on the Albanese Labor Government's commitment to enable people with disability to fully participate in our community and exercise agency over their lives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This gives me a good opportunity to remind the parliament, that supports and services for people with disability go beyond the NDIS—extending to the 4.4 million Australian's with disability in Australia. Many of these services complement those provided under the NDIS and others are stand alone, as the only services people with disability receive.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Disability supports and services have changed significantly since 1986. The Disability Services Act, now more than three decades old, is outdated and too restrictive to accommodate the changing landscape of disability policy. This includes a shift towards creating a more inclusive society and the nature of services and supports required to complement the NDIS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Disability Services Act predates many of the important milestones in the evolution of arrangements that support people with disability in Australia. This includes:</para></quote>
<list>Australia's adoption of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2008, followed by Optional Protocol to the CRPD in 2009</list>
<list>The introduction of the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020, which was followed by the development and implementation of Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031 (ADS), providing a national framework and commitment from leadership towards greater inclusion of people with disability across all areas of public policy, and</list>
<list>The establishment of the NDIS in 2013 through the <inline font-style="italic">NDIS Act 2013,</inline>which currently supports over 610,000 people with disability.</list>
<quote><para class="block">These evolutions have also seen the Australian Government move from solely providing direct block-funded service provision to embracing other models, including person-centred market models of service delivery and support, both within and outside the NDIS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In response to this changed landscape, and taking into account comprehensive feedback from people with disability and the disability sector—the Bill and the Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill -· establishes a contemporary, inclusive framework to fund Commonwealth programs targeted for the benefit of people with disability, their families and carers—because this should apply outside, not just within the NDIS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill has been designed and drafted in consultation with the disability community. It supports the inclusion of people with disability by broadening the supports and services that can be funded under the Bill, and seeks to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on who can receive supports and services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is imperative that the outdated and restrictive Disability Services Act is repealed and replaced with legislation more aligned with this transformed service delivery landscape in order to affirm the rights of people with disability to full inclusion in Australian society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill is an enabling piece of legislation, providing a single-source statutory framework and a clear basis for the Commonwealth to fund certain disability supports and services outside of the NDIS that are not covered by State and Territory obligations under Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031. It contributes to reducing the significant administrative delays in implementing important programs that has resulted from disaggregated legislative frameworks for disability services and supports.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill establishes clear authority to continue funding existing programs, and at the same time, provides a flexible basis from which to fund new non-NDIS supports and services to respond to emerging needs and changing circumstances both now and into the future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill improves quality and safeguarding arrangements by introducing a mandatory Code of Conduct, which will mirror the NDIS Code of Conduct. This Code will set a minimum standard for all service providers and workers, and will show people with disability, their families and carers what they should expect from providers funded under this legislation. This will support the provision of consistent, high-quality supports and services and ensure people with disability are safe when accessing them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill, and the Consequential and Transitional Bill, will also enable the Government's timely response to findings and recommendations arising from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and non-NDIS initiatives arising from the NDIS review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill represents significant legislative reform and demonstrates the Governments continued commitment to breaking down barriers for people with disability and enabling participation by providing a broad and flexible legislative basis for Government to fund services and supports.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Key Changes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">More than 1 in 6 people in Australia live with disability. Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031 demonstrates national recognition that all levels of government are responsible for supporting people with disability to reach their full potential as equal members of the community—not only through providing support, but creating an inclusive society. It is therefore essential to establish a complementary, modem Act that facilitates funding for Commonwealth supports and services for people with disability.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is also essential that such an Act be informed by people with lived and direct experience of disability. This is why the proposed Bill, including the objectives and principles, has been the subject of two rounds of public consultation with a focus on consultation within the disability community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This process highlighted the importance of inclusive, accessible and safe supports and services to people with disability, their families and carers and the broader disability sector. The importance of inclusive, accessible and safe services and supports has also been extensively highlighted by the Disability Royal Commission over that last four and a half years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To support an inclusive focus, the Bill uses modem language to establish a contemporary framework for disability supports and services that complies with a human rights approach. One of the objects of the Bill is to give effect to the CRPD, in conjunction with other key Commonwealth legislation such as the <inline font-style="italic">Disability Discrimination Act 1992, </inline>the <inline font-style="italic">NDIS Act 2013, </inline>the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 199 I </inline>and state and territory disability legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Just this year in June, I led the Australian delegation, which included a group of Australians with diverse experience with disability, to attend the 16th Session of the United Nations Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At the Conference, the Australian Government reaffirmed its commitment to the rights of people with disability at the United Nations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill supports the realisation of the CRPD by focusing on capacity, experience, empowerment, potential and goals for people with disability.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Accordingly, the Bill has been drafted to promote consistency, coordination and accessibility of supports and services for people with disability and to provide a clear basis for the Commonwealth to continue funding disability supports and services alongside the NDIS and alongside state and territory services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Furthermore, the Bill embeds its objects and guiding principles in primary legislation, whereas under the Disability Services Act the objects and guiding principles are prescribed via legislative instrument. This change fosters greater transparency, more certainty, clear articulation of aims and objectives, and provides clearer guidance for actions taken under the legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill's contemporary framework is intended to make clear that it is for the benefit and inclusion of all people with disability. In line with the majority of feedback received from the disability sector, the Bill does not provide a definition of disability. This ensures that access to support and services is not unnecessarily restricted, and allows the Bill to be adaptable and responsive.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under the proposed legislation, individual programs will continue to define target groups, ensuring that they can be tailored to provide the specific supports and services needed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition to expanding the population who can benefit from funding authorised by this Bill, it also broadens funding options.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While the current Act only allows for funding through grants, the proposed legislation will allow other forms of financial arrangements such as contracts and procurement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Complementary to this, the Bill expands the types of supports and services that may be able to receive such funding. The new Bill expands service categories to cover accessibility, accommodation, advocacy, capacity building, carers, community inclusion, counselling, education, employment, independent living, information, recreation, research and evaluation, and respite care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill defines these service categories broadly to allow for flexibility in the future design of supports and services, allowing the government of the day to respond to emerging needs and changing circumstances for non-NDIS supports as required. It also provides for the Minister to define additional service categories, ensuring that the Bill can adapt to meet future needs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has followed closely the hearings and reporting from the Disability Royal Commission. The broad and flexible nature of this Bill is also intended to ensure that the Government has appropriate power to respond effectively and efficiently to findings and recommendations. Of course, this could also include further amendment to the Bill, if required.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to ensuring people with disability are safe from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. That is why this Bill will improve quality and safeguarding arrangements by enabling greater consistency and alignment between regulatory schemes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Disability programs currently use a range of service delivery models that were not foreseen when the Disability Services Act was first established. These programs are delivered through alternative financial arrangements, with legislative authority generally provided by the <inline font-style="italic">Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Regulations 1997. </inline>This has caused administrative delays in program implementation and has meant some programs are not subject to any form of regulatory oversight beyond the requirements in funding agreements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Quality and safeguarding under this Bill are addressed through two key mechanisms—a mandatory Code of Conduct for all providers, and certificates of compliance for providers of certain eligible activities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Code of Conduct will be provided for by legislative instrument. The Code of Conduct will mirror the NDIS Code of Conduct to create consistency, ensure ease of adoption by providers, and most importantly to allow people with disability, their families and carers to understand exactly what they should expect from service providers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill authorises the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to make a legislative instrument to prescribe the kinds of eligible activities to be regulated. This will be based on a risk-based assessment of service provision to ensure the rights and safety of people with disability are protected. A provider delivering regulated activities is required to obtain and hold a certificate of compliance. The standards under the current Act, the National Standards for Disability Services, will be remade under the Bill, providing minimal disruption to providers who hold current certificates of compliance. The key difference is that these standards can now be applied to activities that were previously not regulated, where it is appropriate to do so.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To improve consistency and reduce duplication across the sector, the Bill also includes a power to recognise alternative quality standards, at the determination of the Secretary. This will allow the regulatory burden to be reduced for providers who work across multiple sectors and are subject to multiple quality standards, provided that the standards are recognised as appropriate and comparable. For example, the NDIS Practice Standards.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To ensure people with disability, their families and carers can make complaints about the supports and services they receive, a complaints management instrument will also be made to establish consistent complaints management requirements for providers funded under the Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Where it is established there are breaches of the code of conduct, standards or terms and conditions of funding arrangements, the Bill provides for the Department to make a decision to vary or revoke the arrangement with the Commonwealth. This consistent approach to all funding under the Bill is a key benefit of establishing a single source of authority for the funding of Commonwealth disability services and supports for people with disability outside of the NDIS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill also provides for information sharing and recognition of NDIS banning orders. This will ensure that awareness of wrongdoing in the NDIS can be considered in the context of other Commonwealth disability programs and services—contributing to our commitment to ensure safe and quality services for all people with disability.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Supports and services currently funded under the <inline font-style="italic">Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Regulations 1997 </inline>will have their funding authorisation transition to the Bill as current agreements expire, ensuring appropriate regulatory oversight. All new funding agreements will be made under the Bill. The Code of Conduct will apply to all existing programs and services following the passing of the Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Conclusion</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In summary, the Government is repealing the Disability Services Act and replacing it with a modern, inclusive Act, that in conjunction with other laws, gives effect to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and other international obligations and enables funding of a broader range of disability programs to benefit people with disability using services outside the NDIS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">By introducing a Code of Conduct, and including the power to recognise other standards, the Bill contributes to improving and aligning quality and safeguarding provisions for disability services. Supports and services will continue to be subject to quality and safeguard checks to make sure they are appropriately delivered and are person-centred. Consistent national standards will ensure the rights and safety of people with disability accessing supports and services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The <inline font-style="italic">Disability Services and Inclusion Bill </inline>represents a significant step forward in providing inclusive supports and services to all people with disability.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our focus and our objectives as a Government remains clear—to support people to participate in society, ensure safe and quality services and protect their rights.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">DISABILITY SERVICES AND INCLUSION (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 </inline>(the Consequential and Transitional Bill) makes consequential amendments and provides transitional arrangements to support the proposed Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is in line with this Government's commitment to enable people with disability to participate fully in society and exercise full choice and control over their lives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill provides for the repeal of the Disability Services Act 1986 (the Disability Services Act) (in Schedule 1) and facilitates the continued provision of disability supports and services funded under that Act in accordance with the proposed new enabling legislation, the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will ensure the continuity of services and supports and prevent disruption of funding to disability providers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2 outlines the consequential amendments necessary to ensure the ongoing functioning of a range of current legislation as a result of the repeal of the Disability Services Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 3 of the Bill clarifies that the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 will apply to any new funding arrangements and grants of financial assistance made from the day of commencement of that Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However, to ensure consistency and continuity in the provision of disability supports and services, Schedule 3 further clarifies that the repealed Disability Services Act will continue to apply to grants of financial assistance (including transitional grants) entered into under Part II of that Act prior to its repeal, for the duration of that agreement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It clarifies that the same is true of grants of financial assistance made under the repealed Act—they can continue to be administered under that Act until the end of their agreement. This will also apply to any principles, objectives, guidelines and standards, accreditations, certificates of compliance and delegations that were made under the former Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In order to ensure the continued safety of people with disability, their families and carers who access the supports and services authorised under the former Act, the Consequential and Transitional Bill specifies that any Disability Standards Review Panel for a State or Territory established under the repealed Act before the proposed Bill commences will continue to exist for the term of its agreement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Together with the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, the Consequential and Transitional Bill will deliver much needed support to Australia's disability services sector and contribute to creating a more inclusive society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It ensures a seamless transition in funding arrangements to existing Commonwealth-funded disability supports and services outside of the NDIS, demonstrating this government's commitment to the inclusion of all people with disability in Australian society and complementing existing legislation to fulfil Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023, Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023, Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023, Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7109" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7108" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7098" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7099" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speeches read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENT (DISCHARGE FROM BANKRUPTCY) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill will amend the <inline font-style="italic">Bankruptcy Act 1966 </inline>to clarify when a person will be automatically discharged from bankruptcy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill amends the legislation to accurately reflect the way automatic bankruptcy discharge dates have been calculated by the Australian Financial Security Authority and its predecessors for over thirty years, and will apply both prospectively and retrospectively. This will provide certainty to individuals who apply for bankruptcy or have become bankrupt, creditors and trustees.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill affirms long-standing practice and common understanding of the way the provisions of the legislation have been historically applied. Upon passage of this legislation, the government will take steps to notify all affected parties so they are aware of these measures.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement of Affairs and automatic discharge from bankruptcy</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For a person to apply to enter into bankruptcy voluntarily, they must file a Statement of Affairs. This document outlines a person's financial circumstances and is used to determine eligibility for bankruptcy. Persons who become involuntarily bankrupt through a sequestration order made by the Court must also file a Statement of Affairs. The information provided enables the trustee to effectively administer the bankrupt person's estate during the period of their bankruptcy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under section 149 of the Bankruptcy Act, a person becomes discharged from bankruptcy three years and one day after their Statement of Affairs is filed. The filing of a Statement of Affairs essentially commences a person's period of bankruptcy. This provision was inserted in the Act in 1991 and was intended to encourage those subject to a sequestration order following a creditor's petition to file their Statement of Affairs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Established practices of the Official Receiver</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In practice, individuals often need assistance from the Australian Financial Security Authority, in its capacity as the Official Receiver, in order to provide a Statement of Affairs that is adequate for the purposes of administering the person's estate under bankruptcy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It has been the long-standing practice of the Australian Financial Security Authority, and its predecessors, to record a bankruptcy applicant's Statement of Affairs as having been filed on the date it is accepted, rather than the date it was initially 'presented' or provided. This practice is designed to support vulnerable people by minimising the risk of an application for bankruptcy being rejected. The process allows bankruptcy applications to be assessed for completeness and, if required, applicants to be supported to identify and obtain missing information. Where a statement of affairs is adequate, it is accepted on the day it is provided, however where it is not, the acceptance date may be later. The same approach has been taken where someone becomes bankrupt involuntarily.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Amendments to align the Act with current practice</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will amend the Act to enable the Australian Financial Security Authority to continue its practice of assessing bankruptcy applications for adequacy before the period of a person's bankruptcy commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">New provisions will be inserted into the Act to require the Official Receiver to either accept, or refuse to accept, a Statement of Affairs within 14 days of receiving it. This will ensure that decisions are made within a reasonable time, and provide greater certainty to individuals who apply for bankruptcy or have become bankrupt involuntarily.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Validation of discharge dates and decisions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill includes amendments to ensure that the bankruptcy period of those who are, or have been, bankrupt is consistent with the dates recorded by the Official Receiver prior to commencement in respect to the bankruptcy. This will validate decisions made before commencement of the Bill in reliance on those dates. This will allow bankrupted persons, the trustees of their estates, and other entities who rely on the dates within the National Personal Insolvency Index, to be assured that the discharge dates of existing bankruptcies are not being changed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However, the validation of things done before commencement does not apply to criminal proceedings. This is to ensure that, if a person believes they were wrongfully convicted of a crime due to a mistaken understanding that they were bankrupt at a particular time, the Bill will not restrict their ability to challenge their conviction.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conclusion</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is essential that there be certainty in the Bankruptcy system. The amendments in the Bill will provide certainty to individuals and industry by affirming a long-standing practice and common understanding of the application of the legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">CRIMES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (OMNIBUS No. 2) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.2) Bill 2023 will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of key provisions in the <inline font-style="italic">Crimes Act 1914, </inline>the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code </inline>and the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. </inline>These amendments are required to support the proper administration of justice and combat serious and organised crime.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the Crimes Act to confirm that the Attorney-General has unambiguous authority to make parole order decisions for federal offenders. The amendments put beyond doubt the Attorney-General's duty to make or refuse to make a parole order for a federal offender, even if their non-parole period has expired. This addresses circumstances where it is not possible for a decision to be made prior to the end of a non-parole period, such as where that period is reduced on appeal.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments in Schedule 2 of the Bill will help agencies deal with the threat of serious and organised crime, which poses a grave and enduring threat to Australia's national security and prosperity. In 2020-21, the Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that serious and organised crime cost the Australian community up to $60.1 billion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Existing import controls have proven insufficient in preventing criminal groups from importing chemicals that contribute to Australia's illicit drug market. Transnational, serious and organised crime actors are using increasingly sophisticated methods to import illicit drugs and precursor chemicals into Australia. Schedule 2 to the Bill makes amendments to the Criminal Code to enhance import controls on chemicals that are commonly used as illicit drugs and precursors but which are also used legitimately by industry—for example, in the manufacture of plastics, adhesives or ingredients in cosmetic products.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, these chemicals can be legally imported into Australia for legitimate industrial use by importers that are registered with the Australian Industrial Chemical Introduction Scheme. However, entities not registered with the Australian Industrial Chemical Introduction Scheme that import the chemicals into Australia only face maximum financial penalties of up to 500 penalty units, and the Australian Border Force is not empowered to seize the chemicals from unregistered importers. These measures will ensure that where listed substances are imported by unregistered entities, the importation of these substances will be subject to appropriate criminal penalties under the Criminal Code and be subject</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">to seizure by the Australian Border Force. The amendments will also ensure the relevant regulation-making powers under the Criminal Code are capable of listing dual--use substances in a consistent manner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To fully implement these enhanced import controls, consequential amendments to the <inline font-style="italic">Customs Act 1901 </inline>and the <inline font-style="italic">Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 </inline>are included in the Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Organised crime syndicates are well-resourced, highly resilient to traditional investigative and intelligence-gathering techniques and readily adapt to advances in technologies in their attempts to evade detection and disruption.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, or ACIC, provides mission critical intelligence to combat the destructive and complex threats Australia faces from transnational, serious and organised crime. The ACIC's unique capabilities are critical to supporting law enforcement's understanding of, and response to, serious and organised crime.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The <inline font-style="italic">Australian Crime Commission (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Act 2022 </inline>streamlined provisions in the ACC Act to provide greater certainty with respect to the ACIC Board's powers to authorise special ACIC operations and special ACIC investigations, simplify the determination drafting process and make the determinations easier to understand.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments in Schedule 3 to the Bill put beyond doubt the validity of things done in reliance on authorisations given, and special operation and special investigation determinations made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments are required to ensure that the ACIC can continue to undertake its vital statutory function to combat serious and organised crime in Australia and keep the Australian community safe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments do not expand or otherwise alter the powers available to the ACIC when undertaking special ACIC operations or special ACIC investigations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conclusion</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.2) Bill 2023 makes amendments that will support the proper administration of justice and help protect the Australian community from the pervasive and multifaceted threat of transnational, serious and organised crime.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW SCHEME NO. 2) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians are rightly proud of Medicare and of the committed group of doctors and other health professionals who deliver Medicare services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians know that the overwhelming majority of our doctors and health professionals are honest, hardworking and comply with Medicare rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But they also understand that, at a time of great pressure on household and Government budgets, every dollar in Medicare is precious and must be spent directly on patient care.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The former government was given five separate reviews, including from the Australian National Audit Office, that told them billions of dollars in taxpayer money was being lost each year. They failed to act to protect Medicare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Strengthening Medicare means safeguarding the taxpayer funds that underpin it and this Government is committed to improving the compliance framework that ensures the integrity of Medicare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023 builds on the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Act 2023, </inline>which implemented priority amendments in response to the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip, known as the Philip Review. The Philip Review was commissioned by the Government in November 2022 to respond to concerns about the operation of the Medicare system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While the Philip Review found that the majority of health professionals are well meaning and protective of the health system, it recommended a comprehensive review of legislation relating to Medicare to ensure it is fit for purpose, including amending legislation that hinders the effectiveness of compliance activities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will strengthen the operation of the Professional Services Review, known as the PSR, by addressing ambiguities and issues in the legislation, which will protect the integrity of Medicare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The PSR is an independent agency established under the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973 </inline>and is responsible for protecting the integrity of Medicare by investigating whether a person has engaged in inappropriate practice. In doing so, the PSR protects patients and the community in general from the risks associated with inappropriate practice and protects the Commonwealth from having to meet the cost of services provided as a result of inappropriate practice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The PSR investigates inappropriate practice through review undertaken by the Director of the PSR and in some cases by a PSR Committee made up of health professional peers of the person under review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A key amendment in this Bill relates to the requirements for qualifications of Committee members. The legislation was intended to ensure that members of a Committee would be peers of the person under review and have the appropriate skills and experience to assess their provision of services. However, current requirements are too strict to account for a practitioner with an unusual combination of specialties, where there may be fewer than ten practitioners in Australia with the exact same qualifications. In such cases, it has been very challenging to establish a Committee with similarly-qualified members who do not have any conflicts of interest.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Further, the current requirement for Committee members to have the same qualifications as the practitioner has led to incongruous outcomes if the practitioner is providing services in a different field from their formal specialist qualifications. This is also inconsistent with the purpose of the definition of inappropriate practice, which requires consideration of whether a practitioner's conduct in providing services as one kind of practitioner would be considered unacceptable to the general body of that kind of practitioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To resolve both issues, the Bill will amend the requirements for Committees to better align with the definition of inappropriate practice, that is, if a practitioner was providing services as one kind of practitioner, the members of the Committee must also be that kind of practitioner. The Bill will also clarify that the requirements are met for a person providing services as more than one kind of practitioner if each Committee member is at least one of the relevant kinds of practitioner and the Committee members are, in combination, practitioners of each of the relevant kinds. For example, if a person was providing services as both a cardiologist and a paediatrician, one Committee member could be a cardiologist and the other a paediatrician, or both</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee members could be dual-qualified as both cardiologists and paediatricians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A related change will also clarify how to apply the definition of inappropriate practice, that is, if a practitioner was providing services as more than one kind of practitioner, the test for inappropriate practice is whether their conduct would be unacceptable to the general bodies of each kind of practitioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill also makes several other amendments to clarify and improve administration of the PSR Scheme, including to:</para></quote>
<list>make it clear, where appropriate, that provisions applying to practitioners should include practitioners who are not currently registered to ensure the PSR Scheme can be applied consistently, including to allow a person to be referred for investigation for public safety concerns;</list>
<list>allow the Director of the PSR to extend the statutory period of 12 months to complete a review of a matter if the person under review has left Australia or there is a court proceeding relating to the matter; and</list>
<list>clarify the requirements for a person to notify a PSR Committee that they are unable to attend a hearing due to medical reasons, including that they must provide a medical certificate supporting this.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Clarifying these matters will ensure that a person under review is clearly aware of how the PSR Scheme should apply to them, and enable the PSR to perform its role more effectively.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The PSR must be able to work efficiently to achieve its objective to protect patients, the community and the Commonwealth from the risks and costs of inappropriate practice. This is essential to ensure that Commonwealth resources are directed to necessary health services and to ensure that Medicare remains sustainable. By supporting the integrity of Medicare, this Bill will ultimately benefit all Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A stronger Medicare means stronger safeguards that protect Medicare and the taxpayer funds that underpin it and the Albanese Government is committed to that task.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SOCIAL SERVICES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SUPPORTING THE TRANSITION TO WORK) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Today, I am introducing a Bill to smooth the transition between income support and employment, and give people more support to get into work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At the Jobs and Skills Summit last year, there was a clear message and focus on inclusion, promoting equal opportunities and reducing barriers to employment. We took steps to address this, including introducing the temporary Work Bonus boost, the Carer Inclusive Workplace Initiative, and partnering with the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Network on Disability to develop the Career Pathways Pilot for people with a disability.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The next stage in this process was to develop the Employment White Paper, which the Government released in September. This set out a road map to ensure more Australians can make the most of the big shifts underway in the economy and society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It presented our vision for a dynamic and inclusive labour market in which everyone has the opportunity for secure, fairly paid work and where people, businesses and communities can be the primary beneficiaries of change to thrive.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The White Paper is a commitment to working together, to delivering sustained and inclusive full employment, promoting job security and strong, sustainable wage growth, reigniting productivity growth, filling skills needs, building our future workforce and overcoming barriers to employment and broaden opportunity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill before you today, <inline font-style="italic">the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, </inline>represents one of the immediate actions we are taking to deliver on the objectives of the White Paper.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The changes in the Bill will permanently enhance the pension Work Bonus and extend the employment income nil rate period for those on income support.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The changes to the pension Work Bonus will enable older Australians who choose to work, if they are able to do so, to earn more income from working, before their pension is affected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This builds on the temporary Work Bonus measure the Government announced at the Jobs and Skills summit, which gave all eligible pensioners a one-off$4,000 upfront credit into their Work Bonus balance, and increased their Work Bonus income bank balance from $7,800 to $11,800. This temporary measure is in place from 1 December 2022 to 31 December 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This measure was warmly welcomed by pensioners, stakeholders and peak bodies representing senior Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will permanently extend these changes from 1 January 2024, to all eligible new recipients over Age Pension age who will commence with a Work Bonus balance of $4,000 from day one, instead of starting with $0.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will mean from the outset of commencing on the pension, new recipients will be able to earn $4,000 more before their pension rate is affected. Without this change, these new entrants would have to build up their Work Bonus balance over time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a result, the more than 195,000 senior Australians who commence on a pension each year will be given added incentive to maintain their connection to the workforce, and continue to add their skills, knowledge and expertise to the Australian labour market. This accords with the evident trend of Australians approaching or at retirement age looking to continue to seize more opportunities for work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition, through this Bill we will also retain on a permanent basis, the maximum income bank balance of $11,800 for all eligible pensioners and veterans to accrue in their Work Bonus income bank.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This means pensioners who are not working regularly are able to accrue credits to this higher maximum balance, allowing them to earn more if they do take up some work, before their pension is affected. It also means that existing pensioners who haven't used their one-off $4,000 credit yet will be able to keep it in their income bank to use at a later date.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These changes to the Work Bonus complement existing arrangements in place that enable Age pensioners to earn an amount of income before their pension begins to be reduced. This includes the income free area and taper rate arrangements—which apply to all types of income—along with the Work Bonus, which is specifically designed to reward pensioners who are working. It provides incentives that mean pensioners with employment income can earn more before their pension is affected, and it is the best way to target additional support to pensioners who take on work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Indeed, senior Australians have taken the time to write to me and others in the Government directly to explain how the temporary changes Work Bonus changes have supported them to work more and made a real difference in their lives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recently I heard from Dawn and Murray—working age pensioners from northern NSW, who do seasonal work. For them, continuing to do some work keeps them mentally and physically active, and their employer values them as mature workers because of their work ethic, commitment, life experience and availability. Dawn and Murray have told me how helpful the increase to the Work Bonus has been for them, particularly with cost of living pressures, enabling them to earn more before their pension is affected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We want to continue to ensure that older Australians have the option, should they wish to do so, to take up work or work more. Together, the higher maximum income bank balance limit and the starting balance are targeted and effective changes that will deliver real benefits to those pensioners willing and able to take up work. These changes broaden their choices and increase flexibility, while also helping to break down the barriers faced by older Australians who wish to be in the workforce.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition to enhancing the Work Bonus, from 1 July 2024, this Bill will also double the length of the employment income nil rate period from 12 to 24 weeks and extend access to people who start full-time work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This change is designed to provide more support for people to get back into work, without the fear that the social safety net won't be there if they need it again.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The employment income nil rate period is available to recipients of a range of payments, including the JobSeeker Payment, Youth Allowance, Austudy, ABSTUDY Living Allowance, Parenting Payment and pensions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It enables income support recipients to be considered as still receiving their payment when their fortnightly rate is reduced to nil due to personal or partner income, for the purposes of qualifying for supplementary benefits, including:</para></quote>
<list>Health Care Card or Pensioner Concession Card</list>
<list>Child Care Subsidy</list>
<list>Commonwealth Rent Assistance,</list>
<list>Language Literacy and Numeracy Supplement</list>
<list>Approval Program of Work Supplement</list>
<list>Pensioner Education Supplement</list>
<list>Telephone Allowance</list>
<quote><para class="block">Doubling the nil rate period will allow people to stay active in the system—and retain these benefits—when they first get back into work, for longer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our consultations during the White Paper process recommended changes to social security settings to ensure recipients are not discouraged from taking up paid work. It is commonly reported that losing access to concession cards and supplementary benefits or having to reapply and wait for income support if things don't work out discourages people taking-up work, particularly short-term or casual work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We know that people who have some work are twice as likely to ultimately exit income support as those who don't. To improve employment outcomes and get more people off payment, it is critical that they are not dis-incentivised from taking on these short-term or ad hoc opportunities that could tum into longer term work. This measure is designed to address these concerns by doubling the period people are able to stay connected to the income support system and retain access to these benefits to almost 6 months.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The measures in this Bill will also extend access to the nil rate period to JobSeeker and Youth Allowance (other) recipients who commence in full-time work. Currently, these recipients are ineligible for the employment income nil rate period altogether, so their payment cancels as soon as they commence full-time employment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For example, Hannah is receiving JobSeeker Payment and is offered a full-time, 3-month job working in a supermarket over Christmas. Under current arrangements, if Hannah took up this job, she would not have access the nil rate period. She would lose access to her health-care card, and supplementary payments, and possibly have to reapply for JobSeeker all over again when the job 1s over.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This may deter her from taking up this opportunity</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Through the nil rate measure in this Bill, Hannah is supported to get back into work again, with the confidence that the social safety net is there if she needs it—as it is for all Australians in need.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These changes to income nil rate period are expected to benefit around 138,000 people each year, particularly those receiving JobSeeker Payment and Youth Allowance (other).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These measures complement our actions to improve the economic inclusion of people across Australia. With our measures to Strengthen the Safety Net announced in 2023-24 Budget, the Government is providing additional support to working-age and student payment recipients, as well as more support through Commonwealth Rent Assistance and expanded access to Parenting Payment (Single).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These measures commenced on 20 September 2023. They provide practical assistance and mean more money in the pockets of those doing it toughest. This makes a difference.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And now, with the measures in this Bill, the Government is doing more to help Australians of all ages get into work, consistent with our objective remove barriers to employment and broaden opportunity for all Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the Bill.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Ordered that the bills be listed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> as separate orders of the day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7097" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from the House of Representatives</title>
            <page.no>93</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6979" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>93</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The committee is considering the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 and amendment (1) on sheet 2038, moved by Senator Dean Smith.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just so that everyone is up to speed: we are now dealing with two opposition amendments, one of which I have moved, which is on sheet 2038 and would repeal schedule 4. Soon we will move to the second opposition amendment, on sheet 2043, which deals with the removal of schedule 5.</para>
<para>By removing schedules 4 and 5, the opposition is seeking to hold the government accountable and save the government from itself and the breaking of an election promise—a promise that was given by the former leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and a promise given by the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, on not one but five occasions: in January 2021, 30 March 2021, 15 December 2021, 17 January 2022 and 4 March 2022. The two most senior economic people in the government aspiring to win the election, Mr Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers, gave a commitment to the Australian electorate that they would not change the franking credit regime. They gave that election commitment because they were worried that, having incurred an election loss in 2019, it was in large part—not solely, but in large part—due to a commitment by the then opposition leader, Mr Bill Shorten, to change the franking credit regime, which cost them that election. To create some immunity from that risk for Anthony Albanese and for Dr Chalmers, they went out into the community and said: 'Have no fear. Franking credits will not change in this country.' They said it five times.</para>
<para>What we're dealing with today in the Senate with this Treasury Laws Amendment Bill relates to the government breaking that promise. Proposing that two schedules, schedule 4 and schedule 5, be removed is holding the government accountable, saying to the government, 'Don't proceed with yet another broken promise.' Unfortunately I suspect that the government will proceed, will get the votes to break this election promise, supported by the Australian Greens and by some Independent senators in this chamber.</para>
<para>I just want to stay with the matter of revenue. Senator Bragg asked some questions, but I would like to narrow the commentary and get some commitments and some understanding from the government in regard to my own line of inquiry regarding this matter. I thank the minister for her cooperation to date in making some answers to questions on notice available. I'm just curious to know the time frame in which those questions you've taken on notice will be made available to the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would say a week is reasonable.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In answer to questions on notice, Treasury has made a number of claims about this particular bill. Senate question on notice 1695 asked Treasury whether it acknowledged that the changes to franking credits in the last budget were a tax increase. The Treasury response to that was, 'No, the off-market share buyback measure is designed to improve the integrity of the dividend imputation system and is not a tax increase.' I'm happy to table that response if necessary, but I don't think that really will be necessary. Does the government maintain that the measures contained in schedules 4 and 5 are not a tax increase on Australian companies, investors and retirees?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that it it's certainly not a tax increase. It is about closing the loophole.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So, it's not a tax increase; it's about closing a loophole. Senate question on notice 1694 asked how much of the revenue raised through that measure comes from personal income tax receipts. The answer from the Treasury read: 'Over the forward estimates, personal income tax receipts are expected to increase by $150 million as a result of this policy. Does the government maintain that the measures contained in schedules 4 and 5 are not a tax increase on Australian investors?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's what happens when you close a loophole.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You raise taxes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So when you close a loophole you don't raise taxes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do believe that the senator knows the response to his question as I have responded.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to Senate question on notice No. 1694 clearly states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Over the forward estimates, personal income tax receipts are expected to increase by $150 million as a result of this policy.</para></quote>
<para>Some in this chamber would contend that that reads that this policy increases income tax receipts by $150 million. Do you agree or disagree?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister explain to the chamber how it is then that the measure raises $150 million in personal income tax receipts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, in closing the loophole.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does closing the loophole increase tax receipts by $150 million?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>McCARTHY (—) (): I refer to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senate question on notice No. 1692 asked how much of the revenue raised through the measure is realised through increases to superannuation tax receipts. In response the Treasury said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Over the forward estimates, superannuation fund tax receipts are expected to increase by $400 million as a result of this policy.</para></quote>
<para>Does the government maintain that the measures contained in schedules 4 and 5 are not a tax increase on Australian retirement savings?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I refer to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How is it then that the policy raises $400 million in superannuation tax receipts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answer. We stand by our costings.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government stands by the response to question 1692, which shows that there would be an increase in tax receipts of $400 million. And the government stands by its response to question 1694, which identified that there would be an increase of $150 million in tax receipts.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, we stand by our costings.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to Senate question on notice No. 1693 states that there will be no impact on company tax receipt expected as a result of this policy. If this is a crackdown on companies exploiting a tax loophole, as the government claims, and not a broken promise on taxing franking credits, why does it raise zero dollars from company tax?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We stand by our costings.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you remind the chamber: what are your costings?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we have said previously in answer to questions throughout this debate, Senator.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, if it is not a tax increase, as the first answer reads, how does it increase tax receipts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is about closing the loophole that we've talked about quite a few times throughout today. That loophole began when the previous government, under Scott Morrison as Treasurer, opened that door in 2016 and never closed it, which is why we are here today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In that intervening period, there is the ATO direction, I would add. How does the government reconcile a measure that raises revenue exclusively off personal income tax receipts and superannuation fund tax receipts with the government's claim that this will not hit retirees' franking credits?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know that when you consistently come forward with the same questions it is about your side of politics recognising that you failed to close a loophole. We know that this is an important piece of legislation in terms of closing a loophole that your side of government never did.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>More fundamentally, it is about a commitment being given by a person who wanted to be the prime minister of this country and by someone who wanted to be the Treasurer of this country saying to the electorate that they would not change the law in regard to franking credits. They made that commitment on five occasions and then decided to break that promise. That's the core issue here. Is it then true—and does the government concede—that this is in fact a retiree tax?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's talk about commitments, shall we? You clearly do not want to move past the fact that this began under Scott Morrison as Treasurer in the lower house with wanting to see the closing of this loophole. It never occurred under your government. We are now doing it. The answer to your question is no.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If it raises tax receipts from superannuation funds, how is it not a retiree tax?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answers. This is about closing the loophole. The senator knows that, and I refer to my previous answers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In January 2021 the then opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, gave a commitment that franking credits would not be changed, that the tax law in this regard would not be amended. He gave that commitment. Then a commitment was given on <inline font-style="italic">ABC Radio</inline> on 30 March 2021. Then a commitment was given in Tasmania on 15 December 2021. The then shadow Treasurer gave the commitment on 17 January 2022. Then the Prime Minister on <inline font-style="italic">ABC Radio</inline> in Perth on 4 March 2022 gave a commitment that there would be no change to franking credits. Then in September 2022 the Treasury distributed a consultation paper on its exposure draft legislation. In which month between March 2022 and September 2022 did the Prime Minister decide to break his promise?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure what that has to do with sheet 2038. I refer to my previous answers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has everything to do with sheet 2038, because we are seeking to remove from this bill two schedules which go to the core of the Prime Minister's and the Treasurer's commitment. By removing these two schedules, a promise will not be broken. So, on which month? Was it March 2022, April 2022, May 2022, June 2022, July 2022 or August 2022 that the Prime Minister decided to break his promise?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answers. This is about closing the loophole.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you concede that this is a broken promise?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe I've answered the questions appropriately.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Was there an answer? I don't believe I've asked that question before. What was the answer to my question regarding whether this is a broken promise?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean they're not answers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With all respect, Senator McCarthy, I don't know what the answer was that you gave me.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have said that I've answered it appropriately. This is about closing the loophole, Senator.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>But my question is, at what time did the Prime Minister decide to break his promise?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is about closing the loophole, and I encourage the senator to move along.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given the generosity that you've shown me in taking other questions on notice, I'm wondering whether you might take this question on notice as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've answered the questions. Thank you, Chair.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, given that this change to franking credits will raise almost half a billion dollars in superannuation and income tax, can you clarify what the Prime Minister meant when he was quoted in the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline> newspaper as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I can confirm that Labor has heard that message clearly and that we will not be taking any changes to franking credits to the next election …</para></quote>
<para>Given that this policy raises almost half a billion dollars, can you explain to the chamber and to the Australian electorate, who took the Prime Minister on his word, what he meant by that comment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not for me to know what is in the minds of anyone when they make any comments. But I do know that the Prime Minister would like to see this piece of legislation pass.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>He's happy for the Senate to legislate and give effect to his broken promise?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You clearly have an obsession with our Prime Minister, Senator. I think I've answered that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Would the Prime Minister like this Senate chamber to legislate his broken promise—which he made on five separate occasions—not to change franking credits?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, the Prime Minister would like to see this loophole closed, just as your previous Treasurer, Scott Morrison MP, wanted in 2016.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've had a parliamentary inquiry and a consultation process. A number of those consultation submissions—I'm being generous, as they were in their thousands—weren't released publicly. I'll ask again: can the Treasury name a single corporate law firm, investor group or industry body that supports these franking credit changes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It troubles me that you are trying to imply that there has been a lot of secrecy here when we know that public submissions are exactly that—they are on the public record.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That point takes us right back to where we started today. A high level of secrecy and a lack of consultation was revealed today. This afternoon, I think, many various peak associations reported in the media that they don't feel that they were consulted on that original amendment that was agreed to by the Senate. I think the accusation or suggestion that these things had been done with poor consultation on one level—perhaps even with a level of secrecy at the other end of that—stands up to the evidence.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I reject that outright, and you are making a reference to this particular amendment, which did not include your questions around the amendment that you lost. If you feel very hurt by that, well, clearly it was the wish of the Senate to move that amendment. In terms of this particular amendment, those submissions aren't public. In terms of the question that you just raised previously, they are public. They are on the website, as they should be.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we draw to a close, can the minister detail for the committee the nature of the concerns that were raised through the public consultation process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I imagine that you would know the submissions yourself, Senator, but in relation to schedule 5 there were concerns that we should narrow it, which we have done.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister confirm that the nature of concerns that were raised included concerns over retrospectivity, concerns over the policy objective and concerns over the potential for the legislation as drafted to capture legitimate commercial practices?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm more than happy to repeat what I said in my summing-up speech on the concerns raised. Schedule 5 will improve the operation of the measure by ensuring it operates on from royal assent, thereby providing greater certainty with regard to the treatment of past transactions. The original start date was 15 September 2022. Secondly, it clarifies that it is targeted to artificial and contrived arrangements, mitigating any unintended consequences arising from the original schedule, including clarification that a distribution funded by capital raising in response to a regulatory requirement will not be captured by the legislation. It penalises only the part of the distribution that was funded by the relevant capital raising rather than the entire distribution.</para>
<para>These amendments address feedback provided to the committee, and I'll just refer to that. The amendments limit the amount of a distribution that is made unfrankable to the portion of it that was funded by the relevant equity issue. Before the amendments, the whole distribution would be made unfrankable, even if it were only partially funded by relevant capital raising. The amendments clarify that the principal effect of an equity issue must have been to fund a substantial part of a distribution, as opposed to any part of a distribution. The amendments clarify that the purpose, other than incidental, of an equity issue must have been to fund a substantial part of a distribution, as opposed to any part of a distribution. The amendments clarify that the measure does not apply to an equity raising or distribution made in response to a regulatory requirement, directive or recommendation—for example, one by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to authorised deposit-taking institutions. The amendments change the start date of schedule 5 so that it applies on a prospective basis to distributions made after the date of royal assent rather than to distributions made on or after 15 September 2022. These amendments contain important narrowing of dates.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, because the policy will raise $400 million from superannuation tax receipts and $150 million from personal income tax receipts, don't you think it works against the interests of retirees and others when they are facing a cost-of-living crisis?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answers here, which were that this is an important piece of legislation to close a loophole that your government refused to follow through on, and the answer is no.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much. In conclusion, I think it's important to say this. In the vote that will happen very shortly, the opposition's attempt to remove schedule 5 and schedule 4 from the bill will most likely be defeated. That means that this Senate chamber will have legislated the Prime Minister's broken promise—a promise that he and the Treasurer made on five occasions—and, as a consequence, $550 million will be raised from superannuation tax receipts and personal income tax receipts. That's not just any broken promise; that is a very significant broken promise. I make this point: it was given on five occasions, yet there was hardly a heartbeat between the election in May 2022 and the Treasury's decision in September 2022 to release the consultation paper. It's hard to imagine that the original plan was not always to break that election commitment.</para>
<para>Not once in the deliberations this afternoon have the government said, 'Things changed so dramatically for us that we had to review all of our election commitments.' You've not said that, not once. I think the conclusion that Australian electors might come to, which is that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer always had it in mind to break this election commitment, is true. It wasn't an election commitment that was given in good faith and had to be broken as a result of significantly changed circumstances—not at all. This commitment, given in January 2021 and on 30 March 2021, 15 September 2021, 17 January 2022 and 4 March 2022, was always going to be broken.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is that schedule 4 stand as amended.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [17:57] <br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2043, standing in the name of Senator Hume:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 5, page 41 (line 1) to page 44 (line 12), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is that schedule 5 stand as amended.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:04]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill, as amended, agreed to.<br />Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>99</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be read a third time.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:08]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. <br />Bill read a third time. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7034" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>100</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. Before I get to the substance of the bill, I have to say that this is a completely missed opportunity. I'm going to move some amendments that will give the bill some substance. I hope that the government senators and other colleagues will support them.</para>
<para>After a decade of neglect, we desperately need bold, transformative reform from the highest level of government in this country to protect animals. We need an independent office of animal welfare and a strong, uniform, properly enforced national legislative framework for the protection of the welfare of animals. More than that, though, we need to rethink our entire relationship with animals, and that starts with recognising and enshrining in legislation the reality that animals are sentient beings who feel pain and pleasure and deserve our care and respect. They have intrinsic value beyond the needs and desires of humankind. Animals aren't just commodities or property. They have every right to live, exist and thrive on this planet, just as we do. And they have every right to live lives free of pain, suffering and fear, just as we do. We need a relationship with animals and the natural world which is driven by and based on compassion and respect, not profit and exploitation, and that requires us to challenge the extractive and exploitative incessant-profit driven system that we live in.</para>
<para>Just as we cannot save the planet without ending the excesses of capitalism and neoliberalism, we cannot achieve animal justice without challenging the mindset which views the natural world as something that must be commodified and controlled. We need to challenge the arrogant notion that we own the natural world, rather than being part of an ecosystem and perhaps one cog in its wheel.</para>
<para>Australia is shamefully behind when it comes to caring for animals. Across the nation, grotesque systemic abuse of animals continues. Sheep, cattle and other livestock are shipped across the ocean in horrific conditions, often packed so tightly in heat that is so sweltering that they cook from the inside in a trade that can never be made safe for any animal. Hens suffer in tiny, dark and filthy cages where they spend their entire lives struggling to move or stretch their wings. Pigs live their lives in metal crates they can barely lay down and spend their final moments grasping, shrieking, frothing at the mouth, thrashing around and in absolute terror as they suffocate in chambers. Cows are kept in a permanent state of pregnancy and milked beyond normal capacity with their tiny calves removed and killed.</para>
<para>Around 700,000 poddy calves are killed in their first week every year. Horses are whipped and raced to exhaustion then slaughtered mercilessly at abattoirs when they are no longer winning cash for their owners. Greyhounds suffer thousands of injuries on Australian tracks every year. So many have died cruel and premature deaths on Australian racetracks this year alone. These are just some examples that show these cruel practices have to end. And, of course, Australia's weak policies and lack of strong laws to protect our environment and climate result in immense suffering to animals as well as their habitats and homes being destroyed by land clearing, forest logging and climate induced bushfires. Nearly three billion animals—mammals, reptiles, birds and frogs—were killed or displaced by the devastating 2019 and 2020 bushfires. This ranks as one of the worst wildlife disasters in modern history.</para>
<para>Time and again corporations, whether they be in the racing industry or the live export companies, cover up, lie, mislead and find excuses for the horrific brutality they inflict on animals. And time and again successive Australian governments and ministers from both sides wilfully ignore the systemic abuse and look away as brave whistleblowers and animal welfare organisations go to great lengths to shine a light on the torture and terror being meted out to animals in slaughterhouses, on live export ships, in greyhound racing, in horse racing and elsewhere. I do want to thank the animal welfare activists and advocates who are growing in number every day for their courage and for their love for animals.</para>
<para>The sad truth really is that the Greens are the only party in here with a genuine commitment to animal welfare, and our record speaks for itself. We have fought long and hard to ban the cruelty that is the live export trade, which—and I say this again—can never be made safe for any animal. We have worked tirelessly to expose the cruelty which lies at the heart of the horse and greyhound racing industries, and we have pushed to shine a light on the brutal, horrific and torturous realities of factory farming. The coalition and Labor really are out of touch when it comes to the importance of animal welfare. Independent polling shows that more and more people care about animal welfare. Over 80 per cent of Australians are concerned about animal welfare, and 64 per cent of Australians agree that racing animals like horses and greyhounds for gambling and entertainment is cruel, and that number has been growing steadily over time. It was 59 per cent in 2022 and 55 per cent in 2021. Almost 60 per cent of Australians that are eligible to vote are more likely to vote for a candidate who advocates for stronger animal welfare standards for farm animals.</para>
<para>People want a government that has the courage to recognise that animals have rights and deserve protection, and that government should deliver that protection. While this bill is a tiny step forward, it really demonstrates that Labor lacks the courage to take that full step towards animal protection. Like with so many other policy areas, Labor has presented a solution which is completely inadequate to address the scale of the problem. They have offered tinkering around the edges when we need big, bold shifts. While it was good to see Labor moving towards ending live sheep exports, they went to the last two federal elections with this policy and are moving at a snail's pace. Labor has refused to commit in this term of parliament to legislating an end date for the phasing out of live sheep exports, so I don't know how long we will have to wait, how long those sheep who faced this cruelty will have to wait. Again, independent polling shows that 59 per cent of people want to phase out live exports within two years. Over 43,000 Australians have signed a petition calling for an end to live sheep exports as quickly as possible, and this was tabled in the House by a member of the government just a couple of months ago.</para>
<para>I do urge the government to listen to the community and to members of its own party and in this term legislate an end date for the phase-out within the shortest possible time frame and to support a transition to local processing systems for chilled and frozen meats. Given we are on the way to shutting down live exports to better protect animal welfare, why are Labor refusing to improve sheep welfare in the meantime? Labor voted against my disallowance motion to overturn the Morrison-era changes to the Northern Hemisphere summer ban, sealing the fates of thousands of sheep who will continue to be shipped across the ocean at some of the hottest times of the year, against the advice of animal welfare experts. Until this trade is ended, the government should commit to implementing a full Northern Hemisphere summer ban from 1 May to 31 October to ensure that sheep are not put at an unacceptable risk of heat stress.</para>
<para>It should also ensure that basic transparency measures to keep exporters accountable and protect animals, like the deployment of independent observers, are operating, as they should, on every ship. Currently, independent observers are being deployed on only a handful of ships, with exporters treating their deployment as an optional extra. The department should be forcing exporters to make space available because independent observers are critical for monitoring heat stress and animal welfare.</para>
<para>Another of Labor's key election platforms was to establish the office of the independent inspector-general of animal welfare and increase accountability and transparency for reporting of animal welfare breaches. Labor claimed that the inspector-general of animal welfare's role was to include reporting to parliament on any allegations of breaches of animal welfare standards and investigations undertaken, as well as any sanctions or other actions taken for breaches of Australian animal welfare standards. Animal welfare advocates were rightly excited by this. Sadly, though, this is not what Labor is delivering with this bill we're debating today.</para>
<para>This bill merely tweaks the role and scope of the current Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports, and this is really disappointing. Animal welfare experts have rightly observed that most of the proposed functions under the bill could be carried out by the existing inspector-general and that this bill is a very small step and more about rebranding than about substantive reform.</para>
<para>We heard loud and clear in the inquiry on this bill that the model created by this bill falls short of the expectations of animal welfare advocates, who are demanding an independent, new statutory office with the power to improve animal welfare across all Commonwealth regulated fields, not just in relation to live animal exports. Animal welfare experts emphasised that , at a time when Australia is facing increasing international pressure from trade partners to lift its animal welfare standards, limiting the scope of the inspector-general to live exports is a significant missed opportunity. The government's excuse for delivering such a limited model, despite its ambitious election promises, is that the Commonwealth's power to regulate animal welfare is limited. But that excuse doesn't stack up. The Parliamentary Library has confirmed that the Commonwealth can legislate extensively on animal welfare under several constitutional heads of power, including trade and commerce with other countries, and, among the states, taxation, quarantine, corporations and external affairs. So there is a huge category of animals the Commonwealth could and should be protecting but has chosen not to in this bill.</para>
<para>I will be moving an amendment to extend the scope of the inspector-general to include welfare oversight for these categories of animals. Animal welfare stakeholders, including Australian Alliance for Animals and the RSPCA, strongly support this amendment. I will also be moving Greens amendments to require that the person appointed to the inspector-general role actually has animal welfare expertise, because, believe it or not, there is currently no such requirement. How is it justifiable to appoint someone to a role with the key responsibility of animal welfare and not require them to have that expertise? What a farce. It defies all common sense.</para>
<para>We will also be moving amendments to require the inspector-general to declare any conflicts of interest which may prevent the proper performance of their functions. This is a really crucial amendment because conflicts of interest have for far too long plagued and undermined the Commonwealth's ability to protect animals. The department of agriculture has a long history of failing to prioritise animal welfare because it is fundamentally conflicted, given that it is also responsible for promoting the interests of the industry. Animal welfare will always come second to industry profits, so we must make sure that that's not the case for the inspector-general.</para>
<para>Finally, I will be moving amendments to enshrine the sentience of animals as a guiding principle for the inspector-general. Animal sentience is the reason that animal welfare matters, and it's already recognised in the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement. So why not recognise that in law? Recognising animal sentience isn't theoretical or an abstract concept. We must accept that animals can feel pain and distress. We must accept our moral responsibility to minimise the harm they suffer because of human activities. Many other nations like New Zealand, Sweden, Peru, France and Spain have recognised animal sentience in their laws and it's high time Australia did it too. The Australian Capital Territory recognises it and Victoria has just made moves to recognise animal sentience in their laws. Animals deserve that at the very least.</para>
<para>In addition to the amendments the Greens will move in the Committee of the Whole, I move the Greens second reading amendment on sheet 1975:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that this bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) barely expands the functions and remit of the existing Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) is a wasted opportunity to provide transformative improvements in animal welfare; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) recognise that animals are sentient beings that deserve our care and respect,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) recognise that animals have intrinsic value, separate from the needs of humans,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) in this term of Parliament, introduce legislation to specify the end date for the phase-out of live sheep exports within the shortest possible timeframe, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) establish an Independent Office for Animal Welfare which provides oversight of animal welfare standards to the full extent of the Commonwealth's power".</para></quote>
<para>This amendment calls on the government to recognise that animals are sentient, establish an independent office of animal welfare and in this term legislate an end date for the phase-out of live sheep exports within the shortest possible time frame.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 in the knowledge that we will not be opposing it. However, some of the nonsense that has been put on the public record must be countered. Farmers care about the welfare of animals. People who work along the supply chain care about the welfare of animals, and those in this place who to say otherwise are, quite frankly, a disgrace. It is a disgrace that people come into this chamber and talk about what farmers do to feed and clothe the world, and the way that they address those issues of animal welfare is a disgrace. The fact is, farmers and all those along the supply chain care deeply about the welfare of the stock that they put so much effort into raising.</para>
<para>I myself, as many in this place know, have been involved in a farming family, including the raising of sheep and including the raising of sheep that have been sold into the live export market. The accusation that people in that industry do not care about the welfare of animals is just truly horrible and it's disproven by the facts. The fact is that that industry has done more, certainly more than any radical animal activist group, to improve animal welfare outcomes globally than any other part of society. The fact is that the industry has taken extraordinary steps to improve animal welfare outcomes, not just in Australia but globally. In fact, Australia withdrawing from the global market of animal exports will worsen the situation of animal welfare globally. We are the world leaders. That is widely acknowledged, not just by people in this country, even people in the department who are closing it down, even I believe by the minister. We are world leaders when it comes to animal welfare. We export those standards to the world through our Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, or ESCAS. Australian farmers are part of the supply chain, but so are the transporters, the shippers and the receiving countries, who have all adopted Australia's highest standards because we are part of that market. If we leave that market, they will not continue to use those standards. They will continue to source animals. The live export market of Saudi Arabia, which we have not been part of the decade, is some eight million animals, half of them sheep.</para>
<para>Now that Australia is potentially re-entering that market, hopefully in the very near future, the Saudi Arabians have adopted our ESCAS level of animal welfare. We have a concrete example of how Australia's being in the market actually improves animal welfare standards globally. We can see it happening today. Yet instead of listening to the farmers, instead of listening to the vets, the feedlot operators, those in the supply chain and the shearers, this Labor government wants to listen to groups like Animals Australia—praised to high heaven by the Greens. Animals Australia is a group that has, quite frankly, a despicable and warped moral compass and a completely warped set of ethical standards. In the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline> today:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The founder of one of Australia's biggest animal rights charities—</para></quote>
<para>That is, Animals Australia—</para>
<quote><para class="block">has thrown his support behind the idea that people can have a sexual relationship with animals, insisting it's a better fate for them than being farmed and eaten.</para></quote>
<para>I mean, I just find that completely extraordinary.</para>
<para>And there are plenty of other examples of why Animals Australia's moral compass, their ethical standards, should not be tolerated by civil society. There is ample evidence on the public record that Animals Australia paid a deckhand to procure the footage that caused such a problem for the industry—the <inline font-style="italic">Awassi E</inline><inline font-style="italic">xpress</inline> incident a few years back—and that in discussion about that footage being paid for the suggestion was made that the ventilation could be turned off. Think about that for a moment: an extraordinary amount of money, in excess of $100,000, paid to a relatively low-paid ship worker from a developing country, including the suggestion that, in order to procure the footage, ventilation to those sheep could be turned off. That's Animals Australia. That's despicable, disgraceful—no moral compass at all, no ethical standards at all.</para>
<para>It's an organisation that should lose its charity status tomorrow. It's an organisation that should never be talked to by the Department of Agriculture again. The fact that they have a privileged place at the table with the Department of Agriculture is an absolute disgrace. And every Australian farmer should know that fact. Every Australian farmer should know that Animals Australia have a privileged place at the table with the Department of Agriculture in discussing the future of their industry. It is an organisation that has amply been demonstrated to have a warped moral compass, to have no ethical standards.</para>
<para>Their business model is entirely around procuring, by the payment of cash, photos of suffering animals. Think about the moral hazard that is involved in that transaction. They are willing to give a relatively low-income-earning person from a Third World country large sums of money to procure footage of suffering animals. And guess what? They get footage of suffering animals, and then they show them on social media in Western countries to raise money. What kind of a business model is that? It's an absolute disgrace. They deserve no status in this country. They deserve no serious consideration in this place. They deserve no consideration from the Department of Agriculture. It's an absolute disgrace that they have any voice at all in civil society. I urge all Australians not to listen to groups who have that as their business model.</para>
<para>Think about that: paying low-paid workers from developing countries large sums of money for that. In the case of the <inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">was</inline><inline font-style="italic">si</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Express</inline>, from records it looks like it was in excess of $100,000—three or four years of wages for a deckhand. Is that an acceptable way for a civil society organisation in Australia to act? No, it's not. I call it out for what it is: an absolute disgrace. How could anyone in this place quote that organisation as an organisation that should be listened to, an organisation that is considered virtuous?</para>
<para>It's not just Animals Australia; that's the trouble. So many of these radical animal activist organisations have similar business models. They don't want to close down just the live export of sheep. Don't think that for a moment, if you're listening to this debate. They want to close down the live export of cattle. They're against what they call factory farming, which is basically any modern agriculture. They want to stop horseracing. They want to stop the production of kangaroo meat and the use of kangaroos for leather. They're opposed to so many things that good Australians support.</para>
<para>These organisations work by showing pictures they have procured, in an underhand, disgraceful manner, through the payment of large sums of money. They show people a picture of a suffering animal and—guess what?—people are touched by it. Of course they're touched by it, and so they donate. That's the business model. These organisations don't actually help any suffering animals. They have a business model that is based around the showing of animal suffering to make money. Think about that, Madam Acting Deputy President. Not just Animals Australia but other radical animal rights groups have a business model based on making money off showing pictures of animals suffering. That is how they operate.</para>
<para>These organisations don't care about farmers. They want to see them close down. They want to see all animal production close down. Well, we're not going to stand for it. We on this side of the chamber stand with farmers. In particular, we stand with the sheep farmers of Western Australia, who are currently directly threatened by the Labor government's policy, driven by Animals Australia's disgraceful campaign. That's where it all goes back to. It all goes back to the <inline font-style="italic">Awassi Express</inline>. It all goes back to those photos procured in such a disgraceful way. On the back of listening to these radical animal activist groups and on the back of a few votes in inner-city seats in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, the Labor government is going to close down a significant part of the Western Australian sheep industry. Well, we won't stand for it. My colleagues from Western Australia—and Senator Smith and Senator O'Sullivan are in the chamber—won't stand for it. We stand with Western Australian sheep farmers. We stand with farmers right across Australia. We stand for exporting the highest animal welfare standards in the world. We stand for selling important sources of protein to our near neighbours and to the Middle East.</para>
<para>In particular, we stand with the Western Australian sheep industry, which is the most directly threatened at this point, but don't think those radical animal activist groups will stop there. The cattle industry will be next in line, and then the wool industry. They've already attacked the chicken industry and the pig industry. There is no part of animal production in this country that they will not target next because they will always be able to procure a photo, or they will always be able to buy one if they spend enough money. They will always be able to pay someone enough to engineer a situation where animals suffer, so we've got to stop listening to Animals Australia. We have to stop listening to those groups. Their moral compass disappeared a long time ago. They have no ethical standards. They do nothing to help any animals. They have a business model that is actually based on animals suffering. Those organisations should not have a place in Australia's civil society.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to commend the words and the thoughts of my colleague from WA Senator Brockman, a passionate defender of our agriculture industry and, more importantly, a passionate defender of the sheep industry in WA and the many thousands of people who are going to be detrimentally affected or, in plain English, very badly hurt by Labor's policy to phase out the live export of sheep. As a Queensland senator I can speak with a little experience about what happened in Queensland when a previous agriculture minister, Senator Ludwig, a Labor senator from Queensland, on the basis of a TV program, banned the live export of cattle. Senators from WA—Senator Brockman, Senator Dean Smith and Senator O'Sullivan—would know what that did.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith is correct; it is still in the courts because what that did to family businesses across Queensland means that people in those businesses are still hurting today. I know people don't want to hear about this. They want to talk about the suicides—plural—of countless men and women who were involved because they worked in the live cattle trade out of Queensland. We are not talking just about those who might have worked on the ships; we are also talking about the graziers. If you know anything about farming, which those on the left don't, you'd know that the biggest defenders of the welfare of animals are those who raise them. So many farmers and graziers have grown up around poddy calves. They have grown up around orphan lambs being fed on the hour in the kitchen or in the laundry. They understand the sanctity of life, and they are the biggest defenders and protectors of animals. And yet we have a Labor minister, on the basis of a television program by our friends at the ABC, cancel the live cattle trade out of Queensland and out of Australia. The ramifications of that one decision by that minister, as Senator Smith pointed out, are still before the courts at the moment.</para>
<para>If you understand anything about the agriculture sector in Queensland, it is that these families can cope with droughts to an extent. They understand because often these families have been on the land not for two years but for 20 years, 50 years or 100 years. They understand the land. They understand that there are droughts. They understand that there are floods. But they will never understand the madness of decision-making that comes out of Canberra. I am with them because I don't understand the madness of decision-making that would lead a Labor minister, on the basis of a television program, to destroy such an important part of Queensland's economy.</para>
<para>So what happened to these men, women and their families is that they suddenly lost their business. People went broke. The banks moved in. For those that survived, we had a drought. For those that survived what Minister Ludwig did and survived the drought, we then had the floods in north-west Queensland a few years ago. These graziers, these sentinels, these guardians of remote, regional and rural Australia keep getting punched down by so many factors. We're seeing now, with Labor's proposals, Labor's policy to phase out and ban the live export of sheep, is a stunning and rather depressing example of Labor's failure to understand how the market operates. What's going to happen is that, without the sheep farmers of WA having a market for their sheep, these businesses—and they are businesses; they're small businesses, family-run businesses—will go broke.</para>
<para>Not only will these businesses go broke; for every farm that stops operating as a sheep farm in WA, there is a flow-on effect across regional WA. When the farmer and their family are not making money, it means they're not employing casual labour during peak seasons. It means that they're not going into town and spending money, so it means the small towns, villages and communities across WA are going to be hit, because suddenly money isn't being spent in town. This is what happens. This is a drought that is being forced upon the sheep farmers of WA. When a drought hits part of Australia, those who live in the small towns are hurt just as much as those who live on the land. This is something that those on the left side of politics don't understand about how natural disasters impact our rural communities. The effect is twofold: those on the land and those in town. What is going to happen in WA because the left side of politics is captured by the extreme left of politics, by these groups that use tactics that are beyond the pale to fundraise, who use lies to raise money—because the Labor Party and their coalition partners, the Greens, are captured by these people and by their ideology—the sheep industry in WA, because of Labor, will be cooked.</para>
<para>This is where Labor come in with their failure to understand the market. If you look at the prices for lambs in my home state at the moment, they're going down, because the market is being flooded, because people realise that one outlet for sheep is being phased out, because of Labor. This means that you're having all these lambs and sheep flood the market. On the eastern seaboard, the price of lambs and sheep has plummeted. If you go into a supermarket, the price of lamb hasn't plummeted, because our good friends at Coles and Woolies haven't passed on the reduction in prices to the consumers, even though there are so many sheep farmers on the eastern seaboard who—Acting Deputy President Hughes, you will appreciate this, as someone who is across regional New South Wales—can't actually afford to shoot them at the moment. This is the tragedy.</para>
<para>The same thing is going to happen in WA. Those Rhodes Scholar runners-up over on the left side of politics think this is a genius idea—they're going to save all these sheep. Well, guess what? Because you're stopping them being exported overseas, and because the eastern seaboard is already seeing a massive reduction in the prices for sheep and lambs, what's going to happen to these sheep in WA? Well, they're going to be shot, aren't they, if the farmer can afford to shoot them. They can't take them to market, because there is no market. There is no demand. The dream factory that is Canberra has once again, thanks to this Labor government, come up with a policy that will destroy the sheep industry in Western Australia, with unintended consequences—because they don't understand basic market economics—that will damage and destroy the sheep industry across the rest of the country.</para>
<para>This is where, as a senator, as a politician speaking here in the Senate chamber, you get so frustrated, because we on this side of the chamber can see how this movie ends. We know what's going to happen. You've heard Senator Brockman. You'll hear other WA senators. Senator O'Sullivan is following me. We're telling you how this movie is going to end. It is going to end up with the deaths of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of sheep—put down by sheep farmers. If you don't think that has an impact on the men and women who farm in WA, and their children, then you are having a kid of yourself.</para>
<para>Mental damage was done to the grazing community across Queensland—those on the land and those in the towns—because of what Labor did to the live cattle trade out of Queensland. Those mental scars are still there today. Those families live as much as they can, knowing that their mum or their dad took their life because their mum or their dad hit a cul-de-sac because they could not go on any further because those animals they loved so much had to be put down because of a policy decision made here in Canberra. It was one of the worst policy decisions made by an elected government since the formation of this country in 1901.</para>
<para>You would have thought the Labor Party would have learnt from the ramifications and the scars of that decision, but they didn't. They didn't learn at all, because they're making the same decision again over in WA, destroying the sheep industry, destroying families and destroying communities over there. But they don't care.</para>
<para>This is actually about raw, ugly politics. It is about ensuring that the Greens preference Labor at the next federal election. This is what this is about. It's not about the good people of WA. It is about the preferences of those Australians who vote Green, because the Labor Party can only ever win elections in this country with the preferences of the Greens, and that is sad for Australia.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. Before Senator McGrath moves off, can I just say thank you very much, Senator McGrath—through you, Acting Deputy President Hughes—for your contribution. It's terrific to have that sense of solidarity from senators from other states. My good friend and senator from Queensland knows all too well how onslaughts and attacks on particular industries impacts the lives of family run businesses. I very much appreciate his thoughtful words.</para>
<para>I also want to take the opportunity to thank Senator Brockman for his contribution. Senator Brockman always delivers very thoughtful and powerful speeches on every topic, but, Senator Brockman—through you, Acting Deputy President—that was one of the more powerful presentations that you've ever brought into this place. I think it's not because Senator Brockman has farming in his blood—it's in his family; he's run a farm and his family still has a farm—but because he's dedicated his entire career to working in this space. I've learnt an enormous amount from him since coming into this place and having visited many of the agriculture areas across Western Australia, often with Senator Brockman. I've learnt so much. His connection to the families, the workers and the businesses that are attached to the agricultural industry is, frankly, second to none. When he speaks with that passion that he brought into this place here tonight—sometimes there are people that come into this place and you can spot them as a fake from a mile off because they bring in confected outrage. What you saw tonight was genuine outrage because this is impacting upon families.</para>
<para>I went with many colleagues to the Woolorama Wagin show earlier this year. We had a petition there against what the Albanese Labor government is doing in relation to the banning of live sheep exports. I've never seen a more popular petition. Sometimes you're disappointed that people don't quite get what the issue is, and you wish that you could get more signatures—if people only understood exactly what was going on. Not a person walked past that booth that we held at the Wagin Woolorama in the Liberal Party tent. I suspect a lot of those people may not have voted for us at the last election, hence the result that we had. But not a person walked past without signing that petition, because it was impacting people. There were many people that approached it with real emotion as they signed. There were young people that knew that this ban was going to cost them their job. There were parents that knew that the decision of this government was going to cost them their family farm and their kids' future.</para>
<para>The government will say that they have a mandate because this is what they said before the election that they would do. Well, explain to me why in those key seats of Western Australia, where there actually are sheep farmers, the Liberal Party won? We won those seats of O'Connor, Forrest and Durack. They might have had a mandate from some of the inner-city seats over here on the east coast, but in Western Australia this is a real issue. Even people in the city seats understand that this is an important issue for Western Australians.</para>
<para>We're going to support the passage of this particular legislation. I would be far more enthusiastic about my support for it if I knew that the government were actually supportive of this industry and farmers across Australia—and, indeed, Western Australia—but we know by their actions that they're not. The Albanese government have declared war on the Western Australian agricultural industry by banning live sheep exports. We've seen it before. Like Senator McGrath was saying, they will come after the cattle industry, like they've done before and like I'm sure they'll do in the future.</para>
<para>When the coalition were in government, we were concerned about this bill overreaching into state and territory government responsibilities, but since an inquiry has been held we've sought clarity to ensure that this would not be the case. The coalition government was strong when it came to supporting the agricultural industry. Unlike those opposite, we worked constructively and consulted broadly with industry. It was the former coalition government that established the office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports through the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Act, which we passed in 2019.</para>
<para>The live export trade is a large industry in the Australian economy; make no mistake about it. In 2021-22, Australia exported a total of just over a million livestock, 1.1 million livestock, which included 615,000 cattle and 489,000 sheep. The total value of livestock exported from Australia in 2021-22 was approximately $1.3 billion—$1 billion for cattle and $85 million for sheep. This government thinks that the sheep trade is an easy target because it's maybe not as big as the cattle export trade, but do you know what? To those working families, to those family run businesses and farms across Western Australia, it means a heck of a lot. It's a big deal to them. You're coming after them.</para>
<para>I remember the ad campaigns. I remember the slogans. I remember the billboards you had up in Western Australia saying: 'Vote Labor. Stand up for WA.' You wouldn't dare go to any of those farms or those families right now and prove to them that you're standing up for them. They would laugh straight in your face because they know exactly who you stand up for. You're just standing up for the inner-city lefties over here on the east coast. Why don't you stand up for the Western Australians? They fight hard for their businesses and work themselves to the bone to provide a living for their families and to provide a great future for generations to come, and you're cutting it. The government needs to support this important industry, but we know that Labor is weak when it comes to supporting the agricultural industry. If only they had a minister that was serious about standing up for them. Labor and the Greens have it out for farmers, especially in WA.</para>
<para>With little to no consultation, the Albanese government announced that they would ban live sheep exports. Don't worry—at least they're consulting on the industry's demise. They've appointed a panel that's going around and having engagement with people after the fact. They've got a horrible job. Imagine fronting up to those families. Imagine fronting up to those consultations. They're just consulting on how they're going to close it down, not about what they could do. I know they've done a heck of a lot. I've been on the ships. I've gone and had a look. I've gone to inspect them myself. I've gone with Senator Brockman down to the feedlots to see how they prepare the animals, how the vets come in and check them before they're put on the ship.</para>
<para>I'm just talking about the exporters here, those that are handling the export. The care that they've taken is unbelievable. I was blown away at how they have embraced animal husbandry and animal care and protection to support that industry. It's amazing. In fact, fewer sheep die on the ship in that process than they do out in the paddock in the nice, green, open fields. The steps that the industry have taken is amazing. So here is the government, out consulting with them about their demise. What a shame.</para>
<para>The four-person panel consulting with the industry on the best way to close the trade have clearly found themselves overwhelmed by the calls to open it. The update recently provided by the government's panel said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An overwhelming majority of those people who attended our public meetings voiced their opposition to the government's decision to implement its election commitment and phase out live sheep exports by sea.</para></quote>
<para>The only people who want the government to ban sheep exports, as I've said, are those inner-city left and vegan activists, particular those over here on the east coast, because if you had the guts to actually engage and reach out and understand the view of Western Australians then you would know that Labor is not standing up for WA. It's obvious with their attack on the livelihoods of Western Australians that is in this bill.</para>
<para>Never mind about the livelihoods of those employed making their living working with sheep, like Stephen Bolt, a Corrigin stud merino breeder. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The industry is improving voyage-on-voyage and with Australia leading the way that flows across the globe to other live exported animals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The result of pressure from activist groups is that the government is making a decision—</para></quote>
<para>listen to this—</para>
<quote><para class="block">that's not based on the science and the evidence.</para></quote>
<para>Go and have a look like I have. I know my colleagues have done it and taken the opportunity to go on to a ship and see the ventilation, the big fans. You start at level 1 where maybe the sheep that have just been loaded on in the last hour or so are standing. They're in a new environment, so it's going to be a little exciting for them. As you go up the levels, to where they have been there for several hours or maybe a day, you see that they're literally lying on the ground, seated on the ground—very comfortable. There are ventilation shafts with big fans blowing in cool air. The steps the industry have taken to protect the animals is unbelievable.</para>
<para>The live sheep trade is almost exclusively a Western Australian industry, and that's why I'm saying that this is an attack on Western Australia. It's important to the Western Australian agricultural economy. Banning the industry would directly cause the loss of over 3½ thousand jobs across the supply chain, with about 80 per cent of them based in WA.</para>
<para>I commend a member of the WA upper house, Mr Steve Martin. He is also someone I have learnt an enormous amount from. He's a sheep farmer himself and also a wheat farmer. I've learnt an enormous amount from him as I've gone out to field days with him. He has introduced me to many, many farmers and families that this decision of the Albanese government is affecting. He and his colleagues Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor; and Senator Slade Brockman have received over 10,000 signatures to stop the phasing out of live sheep exports consult with industry. Maybe you haven't signed it yet. I encourage you to get on there and sign it—I've signed it; I know my other colleagues here have signed it—because it is important that we show solidarity with those family run businesses in Western Australia, those 3½ thousand people that are working across the supply chain—again, 80 per cent of them in Western Australia.</para>
<para>Australia has some of the best animal welfare standards in the world. The foolishness of this policy that the government is taking is that the market that we are supplying to will just fill it with supply from other countries that don't have the standards that we have. I spoke about the incredible standards at the feedlot, let alone actually on the farms, let alone out on the fields and in the paddocks, and even on the ship—the fact that there's a vet and an inspector on every one of those voyages. It's just going to export it.</para>
<para>This is the lunacy of this policy that the government has. It is such a shame. Why don't you stand up for Western Australian businesses and Western Australian farmers and support them, rather than kowtowing to the inner-city Left?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 and the issue more widely. First of all, I commend a number of my colleagues here this evening. I commend my good friend and colleague Senator Brockman for his impassioned and very coherent summary of the issue that is now confronting us, the impending ban on the live export of sheep. There is no-one who knows more about the issue and there is no-one more passionate about the farmers and the communities across Western Australia that will be impacted so negatively.</para>
<para>I also congratulate other federal colleagues—obviously, Senator O'Sullivan; Rick Wilson, who has been an incredibly passionate advocate because the majority of the 3½ thousand farmers and supporting communities that will be devastated are in his electorate of O'Connor; and, of course, Melissa Price, who has also been a tireless champion for her farmers and for the industry. I would also particularly like to note my state colleague Steve Martin MLC, who has done an extraordinary job on this issue. Not coming from a farm myself or from the land, I've learnt a lot from my colleagues, and I'm incredibly proud of how as a Liberal team we have stood together in support of Western Australia, standing up against this outrageous knee-jerk reaction by the Labor Party yet again.</para>
<para>This is not only appallingly bad government policy. It's also, as Senator Brockman has pointed out, a pattern of behaviour by Labor when in government. Their knee-jerk reaction which is still having ramifications across Australia, including Western Australia, was their ban on the live cattle trade. As Senator Brockman has said, you can be absolutely certain that more will come. I'll come to the bill in the moment, but I want to talk about one aspect of this philosophical approach by Labor which has been informed, as Senator Brockman so eloquently said, by extremists and radicals who are incredibly misguided and selfish.</para>
<para>Australia plays an important role not only in feeding the rest of the world but also in ensuring that nations who have protein deficiencies can get the protein that they need. In denying this protein to some of our poorest nations who we support with its provision, nobody has stopped to think about the implications for them.</para>
<para>Now, why do we have live meat and animal exports? Firstly, for cultural and religious reasons, and secondly, because the countries who most need our source of protein quite often don't have cold chain infrastructure, and certainly many of their houses do not have refrigeration. So it is essential that we get the livestock there so that it can be slaughtered locally and provided to the people who simply don't have the cold chain provisions.</para>
<para>Protein is an important part of human diets, but an estimated one billion people today still suffer from a serious protein deficiency. The problem is most severe in Central Africa and South Asia, where about 30 per cent of children consume far too little protein. While work is being done globally—scientific work on new forms of protein or artificial forms of protein—these are probably decades away. And this ideological deception—criminal actions, in some cases—not only is hurting many Western Australians and other Australians but also is incredibly selfish. You will be denying the export of animals and meat that comes from a country that now has the highest animal welfare standards in terms of transporting animals, and consumers will go elsewhere, to countries that don't have the same standards that we do here in Australia. It's a bit like the way those opposite think in terms of minerals. Nobody mines minerals in a more environmentally friendly, slavery-free and ethical way than Australia does. But they think: 'Hey, that's okay; we'll just let people get it from other countries, where there is human slavery in the supply chain, where mining is far dirtier on the environment. But hey, I feel okay about this.' That's exactly what those opposites are caving in to in this circumstance.</para>
<para>Let's look a little bit further at the impact on Western Australia, and the independent panel that Minister Murray Watt introduced. He first announced in a <inline font-style="italic">Sky News</inline> interview in June 2022 that he would end live sheep exports but that it was justified on the basis of evidence. Well, as we've heard time and time again in the inquiry and also in this chamber, there is no evidence, because the evidence demonstrates that we have made significant improvements in how we deal with live animal exports. So he's not been able to point to any of the evidence, and in fact if anybody reads the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline> today they will find—and, again, I won't go over the ground, because Senator Brockman very effectively went through that—that the Emanuel case, after several years, completely collapsed, because there was no credible evidence. So, what evidence is Minister Murray Watt talking about? We don't know.</para>
<para>But the independent panel on the phasing out of live sheep exports was appointed, as I said, by Minister Watt. He mentioned it in 2022, and he appointed the panel in March 2023. Now, this panel conducted consultations with stakeholders and received more than 4,100 submissions. The panel also received submissions from international live animal export trading partners. And together with feedback from public consultations that were conducted throughout rural Western Australia, these submissions make it absolutely clear that ending this trade will hurt not only farmers but the entire ecosystem that supports them. It will certainly also damage our international reputation, because we have the reputation as the best supplier of clean, green sheepmeat that is humanely farmed, transported and exported according to Australia's now incredibly stringent animal welfare requirements. The value of this trade has recently been assessed as $143 million, and it supports, as we've heard, about 3,500 regional jobs, the majority of which are in Western Australia.</para>
<para>There are also other pressures currently on the industry. The shortage of labour in abattoirs, coupled with the Qatar Airways decision made by the Labor government, means there is very little capacity for the over half a million sheep that will no longer be exported after this ban takes effect. It's also worth noting that the types of sheep ordered for the Middle East market are lighter in body condition and older than is the preference for the Australian domestic market. So what is going to happen to over half a million sheep?</para>
<para>Since the panel was formed in March 2023, WA farmer confidence has plummeted and sheep prices have scandalously dropped, to $1 to $2 per head, per sheep. This time last year, they were worth between $150 and $180 a head. Recently a WA farmer advertised 600 sheep to give away for free, and he's now facing the prospect of having to shoot the remainder of his sheep. Fortunately, the live sheep trade has just resumed after the summer moratorium, with over 100,000 sheep already shipped from Fremantle port, somewhat relieving the current glut that is predicted to create an on-farm feed shortage later this summer.</para>
<para>While both Ministers Watt and Farrell maintain the live sheep export phase-out will not affect the cattle trade, if anybody here believes that is true, they are dreaming. What the ministers haven't acknowledged publicly is that some Middle East markets receive their cattle in co-shipments with sheep. For example, on the day the conflict broke out in Israel, 5,000 cattle and 3,000 sheep arrived from Fremantle to Israel. Prior to this year's northern summer moratorium, 4 out of 11 vessels had sheep and cattle on board shipments out of Fremantle.</para>
<para>While the opposition will not be opposing this bill, I think the context and the scandal of what this government has done should be yet another stain on those opposite. Somewhat humorously, Senator McGrath stood up just before question time to talk about all of the Labor government's achievements, and he couldn't think of a single one. Sadly, in just 18 months, the list of things the government has got wrong—turning the nation's economy backwards very quickly, releasing violent offenders out into our streets—goes on and on and on. Sadly for Western Australia's farmers, for our economy, for food security and for protein deficits to be filled, this will go down as another completely outrageous, unnecessary and punitive acquiescence to the animal welfare groups, who are incredibly selfish, who lie, and who do not care one jot about the impact they have on food security elsewhere. They certainly do not care as we on this side do, particularly my WA colleagues, about the families and lives that they are ruining. All I can say is shame on you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the limited time I have, I want to indicate that the opposition won't be opposing the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023; there are relatively minor changes here. We did have some concerns, when I sat on the Senate committee inquiry into this bill, about ensuring that these changes would not mean that federal government powers would begin to intrude onto state or territory responsibilities on animal welfare. We've received assurances from the government and some clarity that that won't be the case. As I say, this is rather administrative than otherwise, and the coalition won't oppose the bill.</para>
<para>But it is important, I think, in this space to put on the record that we remain very concerned about the government's policies with regard to live sheep exports, primarily because of the impact on human beings. The government has given very little consideration to how its policy will impact on Australians, especially hardworking Australians in the sheep industry. Primarily, the impact will be on the Western Australian sheep industry. The most shocking thing here from the government is that they've announced that the closure is going to happen, yet they have given no thought to or indication of what support they would provide to people affected by the government's decision.</para>
<para>It's hard for me to think of a more callous act or of a previous Australian government that has taken a decision like this to shut down an industry and not even provide any indication of support to the industry that is being affected by the government's decision. There have been other industries the government has shut down in the past. For example, the tobacco industry was shut here in this country. Parts of the dairy and sugar industries were shut. Some farming activities in the Murray-Darling were shut as a result of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. In all of those instances, there was significant government support provided to the farmers or other affected industries and, in many circumstances, to the broader community that was affected by the government decision. To take a more extreme example, governments across the country shut down industries during COVID for a pandemic. We provided enormous levels of support to those affected by a government decision, in that case, to protect the public health.</para>
<para>We have a decision here where the government are saying—although I don't accept their rationale—that they want to project animal health and animal welfare, yet they're not standing behind their decision. They're not providing support to address the consequences of the decision for Australian families. This is a shocking absence of duty of care to the Australian people. Of course sometimes there are going to be government decisions that not all Australians support. Of course sometimes in government you might not expect support from certain sectors of the economy or society. Clearly the Labor Party do not think they need the support of Australian farmers, given their many actions at the moment attacking the Australian farming industry. But farmers are Australians and, even if they're not voting for you and you don't think you need them to vote for you to stay in government, you should be providing them with support as Australians, and you're not. You're failing in your duty to support Australian farmers and Australian farming families. By taking a callous action like this and shutting down someone's industry and livelihood, you are effectively taking away their property and the hard work by which they put themselves in a position of strength for their families, and you are not providing them with any compensation whatsoever. You're just leaving them out to dry.</para>
<para>As we've heard from other senators already, the impacts of the government's decisions are being felt today. The ban is not due to take effect until sometime in the future. We don't yet know when. There's a massive amount of uncertainty that the government's created here for the sector. But the impacts are happening today, and that's because people in the market aren't silly and the countries that take our product aren't stupid. People who operate currently in Australia are making decisions based on what might happen in the future. Markets are forward-looking. Because there's a major decision coming forward about the closure of a whole industry, already we're seeing countries, primarily in the Middle East, seeking to buy sheep and get product from other nations. So they're taking demand away from Australia already. It is going particularly to South America, where they'll still get their product. I would suggest that probably the animal welfare standards will be reduced because of this decision, but that's what's happening. At the same time, some Australian farmers are taking the decision to get out of the industry early. Particularly in the breeding sector, where their exposure is over many years, they're starting to sell. Breeders are putting their animals onto the market.</para>
<para>So you have a situation, because of a government decision, where demand for Australian sheep is down and supply of Australian sheep is up. What's going to happen to the price? It's going to crash, and that's exactly what we've seen over the past year. We have the ludicrous situation of a government minister, the agriculture minister, refusing to believe that this could be possible. He misconstrued the evidence from Senate estimates the other week, trying to suggest that ABARES somehow analysed this and decided, 'No, no, there wasn't any impact from government decisions.' When you go to the report, there was no such analysis at all. The government has done nothing. They have left Australian farmers high and dry, and it is an absolute disgrace. I'll have more to say about this when we resume.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for debate has expired. Senator Canavan, you will be in continuation.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>110</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dementia</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm delighted to make a contribution tonight and talk about the Parliamentary Friends of Dementia group. We had an event late this afternoon and this evening. I believe in the magic of Arts and Dementia. I want to acknowledge my co-convener, Nola Marino MP, and thank her for the contribution that she makes every single day in the other place in the work she does about raising dementia awareness. I have to say that it was an amazing event, and I want to acknowledge those members and senators who were able to join us. Senator Richard Colbeck, who has just joined us in the chamber, was there, and I'm sure he will attest to the fact that the panel discussion today was just an amazing experience. I would also like to acknowledge the facilitator, Dr Pat Baines. We had Mr Colin Blake who is a dementia advocate. He cares for his wife, Shirley. An interesting fact is that Shirley and Colin were on the ABC program titled Keep On Dancing. The amazing thing is, when Shirley dances, it's like the first time she is dancing with Colin. Hearing that was so moving, and I want to acknowledge their contribution this afternoon.</para>
<para>We then had Matt Okine, the comedian-actor who is also responsible for the new version of <inline font-style="italic">Mother and Son</inline> on the ABC. He is exposing the Australian community to dementia and breaking down some of the barriers and myths around dementia. He was an amazing contributor to that panel as well. Then we had Mark Seymour, another Dementia Australia ambassador. He spoke about his journey with his mother and how he probably had a much closer relationship with his mother because she is on that dementia journey. He sang a couple of songs and brought us all to tears. It was just amazing. Then we had Dr Janet Thomas, a dementia advocate living with dementia who is an author, and with the support of her writing friends and her wonderful husband she continues to write. It was an amazing event and I want to pay special acknowledgement to Dementia Australia for all the work that they do. Their CEO is the inspiring Maree McCabe, and I thank her for her leadership over a long period of time. I also acknowledge David Edghill and, in particular, Christine Bolt. I thank them and the rest of the team for bringing this event altogether. It was just an amazing, moving event.</para>
<para>Colin spoke about his relationship with his wife, Shirley, and he explained to us about love. Their love was a love of sharing. Now that she has been on this journey for seven years, it is a love of dependence. When we were fortunate enough to have Mark singing for us, we saw Shirley and Colin were up and dancing. That just reminded everyone that, when you have a diagnosis of dementia, you can have the best life possible if we give you the tools and the support you need to continue to enjoy your life to your full capacity. But what we also have to do as a government is to continue to invest. We have to support their carers, and we have to acknowledge the early onset of dementia and what that does to our local economies when the person diagnosed with dementia has to leave their work and their carer also has to leave work because people having to leave their work has an impact on the Australian economy. I just want to do a big shout-out for all of those members and senators who joined us and the advocates for what they do each and every day, and really pay homage to Dementia Australia. I've been a co-convenor for more than 10 years, and it's amazing how far we've come in breaking down the barriers and educating people in this place, the other place and our staff about dementia and how important it is. It's a very important part of life for too many Australians, and we have to do all we can to support them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Dementia, Tasmania: Salmon Industry, Maugean Skate</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not what I was going to talk about, but I would like to associate myself with the comments of Senator Polley in relation to the event held by Dementia Australia today. I say to Maree McCabe, her team and those who were there living with dementia and telling their family stories: they absolutely smashed it out of the park tonight. It was one of the most engaging occasions of their regular visits here to Parliament House, and the connections that they created with their stories tonight were, as Senator Polley has indicated, so profound. And so, to Senator Polley and Nola Marino, who are the co-chairs, and to all the others who were there: they saw something very special. As I've indicated, Maree McCabe and her team literally smashed it out of the park tonight.</para>
<para>Tonight I want to comment on something I've spoken about previously in the chamber: the circumstance of the salmon industry, particularly in Macquarie Harbour on the west coast of Tasmania. This is an industry that makes a significant contribution to the Tasmanian economy. The aquaculture industry in Tasmania is worth in excess of $1 billion to the Tasmanian economy, and a significant proportion of that is in Macquarie Harbour on the West Coast. There are hundreds of jobs involved on the west coast, and three businesses have been there for a considerable period of time—one of them for decades—farming in Macquarie Harbour.</para>
<para>The industry feels under severe threat at the moment due to a request from three environmental groups to overturn an environmental approval that was made by Tony Burke when he was environment minister 11 years ago. If Minister Plibersek actually opens up this approval that was given by Mr Burke 11 years ago, it will be the first time that a project that has been running for so long has had its environmental approval reconsidered. It will be the first time since the EPBC Act came in.</para>
<para>This is not just a threat to the salmon industry in Tasmania; it's a threat to every other business organisation that has an environmental approval that's been put in place. If you don't think that organisations like the Wilderness Society and other environment groups—those anti-everything brigades—will use this as the thin edge of the wedge, you are kidding yourself. That's exactly what they will do. They will attempt to pry open every environmental approval that's been given where they decide that they know better than everybody else and they decide and should be the ones that provide the environmental and social licence to these projects so these extraordinarily important parts of our economy can continue to go ahead.</para>
<para>Minister Plibersek should work with the Tasmanian government on the significant plan that's been put in place by the industry. To give credit to the government, they have contributed $2.1 million. The Tasmanian government has contributed $2.1 million. The industry's put $4 million of its own money on the table and, through its levies, is seeking another $3 million through the FRDC to support the survival of the maugean skate, which is what this is all about. But an environmental approval that has been in place for 11 years should not be cracked open. The industry should be given the opportunity to work with the government and the funding that everyone has put up to resolve the issues in relation to the oxygenation of Macquarie Harbour. But the environment movement should not be given the opportunity to crack open an environmental approval that was given 11 years ago and put everything else on the table at risk as well. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is my privilege to read out two speeches tonight as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. I'm proud to support this campaign to amplify the voices of young women and gender-diverse people in parliament. Our democracy should reflect all the diversity of our streets and suburbs, and I'm so impressed by the many politically engaged young women, women of colour and gender-diverse people who articulate so powerfully the work that we must do to achieve racial, climate and social justice.</para>
<para>Isha Singhal, aged 22, from Reid, New South Wales, has this to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An equal Australia. I wish for an Australia where a woman can dream the same dreams as anyone else, where gender and racial equality isn't seen as a radical idea but rather the norm, where a woman can walk down the street and just walk, without thinking of all the things that could go wrong, an Australia where all our future generations are one and free.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I wish for an Australia where women are believed, where they are not asked about their clothes or why they did not speak up sooner. I wish for an Australia where women did not have stories to speak up about. I hope future generations do not have any stories like these to tell. I hope for an Australia where women, especially diverse women, have their talents recognised and valued.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have seen the Matildas, a more diverse federal parliament and many strong women in my community inspire me and other women to break barriers. I hope that future generations of women can achieve all they want without needing to break barriers, and I hope that this growth and progress extends to women from all sorts of diverse backgrounds. An Australia that everyone can truly be part of is a better Australia for all of us.</para></quote>
<para>Hear, hear, Isha.</para>
<para>Jess Travers-Wolf, from Warringah, New South Wales, says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My name is Jess. I'm 18 years old and I was raised on Gamaraygal land. Climate change has forced a generation of Australian children to grow up too soon. We are faced with an increasingly volatile and uncertain world, which cannot offer us the same stability and comfort it once offered our parents. Levels of climate change anxiety are increasing at an alarming rate, with 26 per cent of young people extremely anxious about the effect climate will have on their world.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I was 15 when I first truly felt and understood this anxiety. The Black Summer bushfires were burning and blistering the country I loved, killing 33 people and eliminating an estimated three billion of Australia's precious natural fauna. It was impossible to look away, to not feel the pain which rippled through the nation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am calling on this government to acknowledge its duty of care to young people. We deserve to be considered and protected in every decision made by this parliament. Gone are the times when politicians can make unilateral decisions without considering the health and wellbeing of current and future Australian children. To make Australia the best possible place for future generations, a duty of care needs to be legislated to ensure the interests and safety of all Australian young people are at the heart of this parliament's work.</para></quote>
<para>Thank you, Jess. With these amazing young people, I think the future of this country is in safe hands.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will continue reading the names of hostages held by Hamas: Moran Yanai, 40; Adrienne 'Aviva' Siegel, 62, and her husband, Keith Samuel Siegel, 64; Ron Sherman, 19; Ditza Heiman, 84; Elia Cohen, 27; Elkana Bohbot, 34; Agam Berger, 19; Raz Ben Ami, 57, and her husband, Ohad Ben Ami, 55; Nick Beiser, 19; Yuval Brodetz, eight, Oriya Brodetz, 4½, Ofri Brodetz, 10, and their mum, Hagar Brodetz, 40; Naama Levy, 19; Almog Meir Jan, 21; Karina Ariev, 19; Noa Argamani, 26; Or Avinathan, 30; Liri Elbag, 18; Mia Schem, 21; Yaffa Adar, 85; Omer Wenkert, 22; Carmel Gat, 39; Kfir Bibas, nine months, his brother, Ariel Bibas, four, their mum, Shiri Bibas, 32, and their dad, Yarden Bibas, 34; Erez Kalderon, 11, his sister, Sahar Kalderon, 16, and their dad, Ofer Kalderon, 53; and, finally, Louis Har, 70.</para>
<para>In the Senate of Australia I have read the names of those kidnapped. The souls held hostage by Hamas are no mere list; the are the line between light and darkness. Until all are home in the light, all of us are in the shadows of Hamas.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament, Asylum Seekers</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased tonight to read a speech written by Tricia for the Youth Voice in Parliament campaign, a national non-partisan initiative that aims to increase the political literacy of all our young voters and voters to be. Thank you, Tricia, for these words.</para>
<quote><para class="block">My name is Tricia. I am a 16-year-old student from Fowler. I am in Year 11. I only have one more year of high school left. I should be optimistic about the future. I should be excited to attend university, pursue my dream career, and make the big bucks. But I'm anxious. How will I achieve these goals without certainty? Where will I go? Where will I live? Where will I stay? Should I pay rent to live in the city centre, or should I spend three hours commuting daily to university, or simply show up to work? That should absolutely not be a difficult choice to make, yet millions of young Australians eventually have to. They eventually make up their minds. They either pay exorbitant rent or sit in a mind numbing train for hours.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The power dynamic between landlord and tenant is clear for anyone to see. Like Ursula, tenants are bound with a contract with purposefully vague terms. There are no clear promises from landlords to make fixes. There are no clear promises they will not be unfairly evicted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My vision for Australia is a flourishing society where everyone can pursue their dreams with no anxiety, no worries, and no fears of being homeless in an instant. I can see optimism on the horizon, taste the freedom on the other side and scent of sweetness, hear the vivacious cheers, and feel the pounding hearts of many who have received their university and interview acceptance emails. Yet, this vision is slipping away from me the longer the parliament refuses to take action. Parliament needs to immensely increase rental support and impose the rent freeze that we have all been asking for.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">One third of Australians are renters, yet nothing sufficient is being done. There needs to be a rent freeze. There needs to be a rent cap which can be adjusted for inflation. Instead, there is no rent freeze. House rents are increasing three times as fast as wages.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I urgently implore the parliament to successfully pass legislation to establish a rent freeze, discussed by economists, politicians, and people alike. Start discussing more policies to assist renters today. Now. All of Australia is waiting.</para></quote>
<para>Thanks so much, Tricia, and good luck to you and all of your friends in year 11.</para>
<para>Madam President, yesterday I had the privilege of meeting 15 inspiring Tamil and Iranian refugee women who had completed their Walk For a Fair Go all the way from my hometown of Sydney to Canberra. They walked 300 kilometres over 14 days to come to this place and share their struggle for a fair go. I met them out the front and I saw their sore feet and also the fact that they had got here and achieved that extraordinary outcome.</para>
<para>These brave, strong women came to our country seeking asylum and a better life, and they expected to be given a fair go, because that's what our country is meant to be based on. Instead their refugee protection applications were rejected by the flawed fast-track process put in place by the previous coalition government. When the Labor government came into power, they expected that their decade-long life in limbo, with no protection and no access to benefits, would come to an end, because that's what the Albanese government's election platform was when they were in opposition. That's what they promised. These 15 women, and over 10,000 other refugees just like them, have still not been given an opportunity to fairly seek permanent protection under a fair refugee assessment process.</para>
<para>The Albanese government must do better. It must put in place a fair and proper refugee assessment process to ensure those who are seeking asylum are given a fair go and don't have to live their lives in limbo and uncertainty. If you bring that legislation to the parliament, the Greens will back you in and support it in a heartbeat. We must do better. We must give these amazing women, and the thousands more like them who were fast-tracked to unfairness by the coalition, a fair, prompt and transparent pathway to permanent protection in Australia, welcome them into our society, welcome them as fellow citizens and give them that fair place, that fair process to protect them. They deserve that much.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 19:51</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>