DOCUMENTS

2023-11-16 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 16 November 2023

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023 1

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

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today in favour of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023. This bill will expand the water trigger in our environment laws to ensure all proposed unconventional gas projects are assessed for their impacts on critical water resources. Water is life. Our rivers and waterways are critical for the survival of our ecosystems, culture and communities. Yet a loophole in our environment laws means fracking corporations have a licence to drill without regard for our rivers or the voices of traditional owners. Currently, the Minister for the Environment and Water is only required to assess proposed coal seam gas projects for their water impact, while hydraulic fracturing projects remain exempt from this requirement, despite their significant water impact. This does not make sense. This bill seeks to fix this failure of our environment laws and provide stronger protection for Australia's rivers, aquifers, wetlands and the communities that rely upon them. The Albanese government has already made its commitment to an expanded water trigger clear in its Nature Positive Plan. However, if stalled beyond this year, this promise will be too little, too late. This reform is urgent. Current projects that are soon to be given approval without considering the impact on water will go ahead unless we fix this loophole. The Albanese government did, of course, promise to do this by the end of this calendar year. Where is this reform? In the Northern Territory, fracking companies are on the precipice of large-scale gas extraction. Fracking projects in the Beetaloo Basin are expected to receive first gas production approvals imminently. This is why this reform is urgent. Unless the water trigger is extended, there is no requirement for federal assessment and approval when changing from an exploration to a production licence. This is clearly a loophole that needs to be fixed. Last week the NT government released their Georgina Wiso Water Allocation Plan, which proposes to give billions of litres of water to fracking and cotton companies. Scientists and water experts have sounded the alarm about what is a completely unsustainable and frankly dangerous allocation of water. The plan was prepared without an advisory committee, in breach of the National Water Initiative. The proposed extraction could stop the Roper River flowing and endanger the Northern Territory aquifers, billabongs and sacred sites. The NT government is acting completely recklessly, sacrificing the environment and culture to pave way for fracking. The complete lack of concern for preserving the NT's critical water resources is alarming. We are in 2023. It's time we consider the impacts of these types of projects on precious resources like water. Fracking uses enormous volumes of water and puts groundwater and surface water at risk of contamination. Without impact assessment, water resources may be limitlessly exploited and irreversibly damaged for projects that do nothing but put our climate at further risk. For every gas well, fracking companies require millions of litres of groundwater, which the NT government is willing to give them now. An expanded water trigger in our federal environment laws will provide an urgently needed layer of protection for NT water and waterways by ensuring rigorous assessment of potential impacts to waterways. The federal government must show leadership and step in to stop this dangerous overextraction before irreversible damage is done to the climate and to our river systems and waterways. Contamination of water as a result of fracking is also a critical concern for communities throughout the region. Even in the exploration phase, we have already seen fracking corporations acting like cowboys, with simply no regard for the water and how they handle it. Tamboran Resources barely received a slap on the wrist for spraying toxic wastewater all over their site. Communities and workers alike have expressed concerns about how this action could have poisoned waterways, ecosystems and ultimately the health of communities in the region. There needs to be a better system of accountability and responsibility. Fracking the Beetaloo will have not only an immediate impact on the NT environment but ongoing impacts that will be felt long into the future. This climate bomb could increase emissions by up to 117 million tonnes a year. That's 25 per cent of Australia's annual emissions. As the climate crisis worsens, we need to be doing everything we can to protect our environment. This means not only protecting what water we still have but properly regulating polluting industries that make the climate crisis worse. They cannot be allowed to freely exploit a resource that is absolutely critical to human survival. Already the impacts of climate change are being felt within the NT and, of course, across the rest of the country, with visible impacts on water resources in this generation. I want to thank the delegation of traditional owners who visited parliament earlier this year to tell us about the impacts of fracking on their country. I want to quote what they told me. They said: We know this planned gas fracking will make climate change worse. We know if this fracking goes ahead we may not be able to live on country like we have for thousands and thousands of years. We need your help to keep our culture, our water, our climate and our children's futures safe. Our water, our land and our climate is all linked. If we wait any longer to implement an expanded water trigger, fracking could result in irreversible overextraction of water, compounded by worsening climate impacts in the region. Commitments have been made to expand the water trigger over and over again. It is time we get this done. The Albanese government committed to it both at the election and in their Nature Positive Plan. The NT government committed to it through the implementation of all recommendations of the NT fracking inquiry conducted by Justice Pepper. The Senate inquiry into the Beetaloo basin, in its majority report, recommended its implementation by 31 December 2023. That is a little more than a month away from today. Despite these commitments and these promises, the NT government have lifted their moratorium on fracking, and the water trigger is still not in place. With broad support across this parliament, we must urgently act to pass this bill and implement an expanded water trigger before commercial fracking gets the green light and irreversible damage is done. Now, more than ever, we need to listen to First Nations voices when it comes to protecting our environment. This bill is an opportunity to protect our rivers, aquifers and wetlands and the communities and culture they sustain. With the government already committed to this reform, now laid out in this bill before the Senate, there is nothing to stand in the way of the implementation of an expanded water trigger by the end of this year. The ball is now in the government 's court. We hope to be able to work cooperatively across this chamber to get this reform done before mistakes are made and before damage is done that cannot and will not be reversible. I urge the Senate to pass this bill. 09:10 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania There's much to unpack in relation to this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023 [No. 2]. The first thing to say is that its introduction is yet another legacy of the vacuum created by the Labor Party as a result of their shambolic inability to make changes to Australia's national environmental laws. When the Greens announced on 16 October this year that they would introduce this bill they also released an important letter from Senator Hanson-Young to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek. It was a letter I took great delight in reading, and so did the rest of Australia. The content of that letter, dated 13 October 2023, confirmed what the coalition had been saying for months, which was that Ms Plibersek's multiple promises to finalise new national environmental laws by the end of this year, 2023, had gone up in smoke. They were just more broken promises. We now know from the admissions of senior officials from her department that even the process of drafting those laws is still many months away. There's a very real possibility that they may not even pass through the parliament before the time of the next federal election. Extraordinarily, all of this has still never been openly conceded by Ms Plibersek, who laughably claimed just a few weeks ago that the process was running two full months ahead of schedule—an unbelievable claim to make. The major delays under her watch and her woeful performance as minister are already having many far-reaching flow-on effects. One of those is that disillusionment and frustration are rising amongst those Australians who are interested in seeing well-balanced environmental and economic outcomes achieved across our country under the laws that govern them. Another is that the ALP are creating substantial uncertainty about how and whether they will even address the many individual elements of Australia's environmental laws that need to be urgently tackled. There's general agreement that the application of the water trigger is one of those. Since it was included in the EPBC Act, at the instigation of the then member for New England, Tony Windsor MP, during the years of the Rudd-Gillard governments, a range of problems and concerns have arisen in relation to the application and workability of the trigger. In turn, there remain a very wide variety of views about the trigger and how it should or should not be used into the future. Against this background, it's very concerning that the government, last year, snuck some wording into its so-called and elusive Nature Positive Plan that indicated it is looking at increasing federal power over states and territories in this field of policy, including by expanding the remit of the existing water trigger to all forms of unconventional gas. In the coalition, we are particularly concerned about exactly what changes Labor might make to the water trigger under Ms Plibersek, especially if they entail some sort of expansion. Time and time again during her period as environment minister we've seen her adopt an ideological stance rather than one that's based on consultation and serious, science based evidence. More to the point, we've seen her succumb over and over again to environmental activism without adequately considering the often calamitous economic and social ramifications of her actions. Across our time in government, the coalition did not support the trigger's application to unconventional forms of gas, and that remains our position. Moreover, it's our belief that less federal intervention and an increased role for the states and territories in this area, and accordingly reduced duplication across different levels of government, will be likely to promote more informed local knowledge and deliver much better results. We don't share the view of the Greens and teals—or Labor, for that matter—that federal expansion here is a good thing. The more the federal water trigger is extended, the more unwieldy and ineffective this area of policy will almost inevitably become. That said, we can understand why anyone would be tempted to suggest amendments to the individual elements of the EPBC Act at the moment. In the absence of any leadership, hard work or semblance of delivery or achievement from the environment minister, it's not unreasonable for others to try and step in by nominating ad hoc fixes as one option in trying to overcome Labor's utter malaise in this area, and that's exactly what the Greens are trying to do here. Nonetheless, this bill embodies a policy approach that is the opposite to the one that the coalition supports. We might add that, particularly from their public statements, a number of members of the Greens and teals also seem to be labouring under some fairly significant misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the issues at the core of the bill. The member for Warringah, for example, said on 16 October this year: … to … expand the definition of the water trigger to cover all forms of unconventional gas … is consistent with the expert advice from … the Samuel review. It's really not clear how anyone could have seriously formed that view. Indeed, the Samuel review consistently made the point that the Commonwealth's role in this area should be reduced rather than increased. Moreover, it concluded that it is plainly the states and territories that are better vested with these responsibilities. Recommendation 1 of that review, for instance, said quite clearly, 'Matters of national environmental significance should be focused on Commonwealth responsibilities for the environment,' and that the water matter of national environmental significance in sections 24D and 24E should be confined 'only to cross-border water resources'. Likewise, recommendation 18 said: … Commonwealth assessment pathways should be rationalised to enable a risk-based approach to assessments that is proportionate to the level of impact on matters protected by the EPBC Act. The review's final report also said: Many of the suggestions about the Commonwealth taking on a broader role reflect a lack of trust that States and Territories will manage these elements well. The Review does not agree with suggestions that the environmental matters the EPBC Act deals with should be broadened. The remit of the Act should not be expanded to cover environmental matters that are State and Territory responsibilities. To do so would result in muddled responsibilities, further duplication and inefficiency. Unclear responsibilities mean that the community is less able to hold governments to account. That would be a bad outcome. The report also noted: The States and Territories have constitutional responsibility for managing their water resources. This responsibility is reflected in the National Water Initiative, which is the intergovernmental agreement that sets out the respective roles of jurisdictions in water management and the water reform agenda they have collectively agreed to pursue. Likewise, it stressed: Direct or indirect changes to water resources that have a potential to impact protected matters have always triggered the EPBC Act and should continue to do so. The Samuel review also found: To reduce the complexity of the regulatory process, the pathways for assessing proposals should be rationalised— rather than, as is the basic proposition behind this bill, widened. The Samuel review also said: Reducing duplication in development assessment and approval is a sound ambition, and one that governments should continue to pursue. The Review recommends that the EPBC Act should enable the Commonwealth Government to recognise and accredit the regulatory processes and environmental management activities of other parties, including States and Territories and other Commonwealth agencies. This would streamline decision-making by removing the obligation for a project to be assessed under multiple environmental assessment laws. It should be added that at the federal level the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development has already been in existence for over a decade, specifically in order to independently advise government regulators on the impacts that coal seam gas and large coalmining development may have on Australia's water resources. That is its very function, and it receives significant federal government support to undertake this work. Given all that history and context, and in keeping with the coalition's consistent and longstanding approach on this issue of the possible expansion of the water trigger, we won't be supporting this bill. The very conception of the bill suggests that the Greens, the teals and probably the ALP will continue to try to imagine a way to land a solution that's actually illusory, impossible and unworkable, and this will continue to cause many people no end of problems in the process. By contrast, the coalition will continue to advocate for measured and commonsense solutions that actually work and that sensibly balance environmental and economic priorities for Australia. 09:19 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The government welcome the Greens party introducing this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023 [No. 2], we understand the reasoning behind the private senator's bill and we commend Senator Hanson-Young for focusing on this important issue. The government have already committed to legislating the water trigger as part of our broader commitment to reform our environmental law. We're committed to extending the protections under Australia's environmental law to coal seam gas and other types of unconventional gas. That would include shale and tight gas, which are the ones that I believe Senator Hanson-Young is most concerned about because, due to the passage of time, they sit outside of the laws that we all know are broken. When the laws were first developed, these forms of gas were not included. The government have made their own commitments on this topic over many years, and we are delivering on those commitments under the strong new environmental laws to deliver a nature positive environment. The laws we have currently are highly process driven, they're cumbersome and they're difficult to work with. It's difficult to find anyone who thinks that they work for them—not the environmentalists, not business, not developers. They just don't work, and we've known this for a considerable time. Unfortunately, our colleagues in the Liberal and National parties chose not to do anything to address that when they were in government. These processes slow down decision-making and put people through an awful lot of hoops. And I'm not averse to a hoop if I think it's a useful one; I'm not averse to a lengthy, hard process if that's going to protect our environment. But we know that that's not necessary. There are many ways to improve this system to better protect the environment, which our laws don't appropriately do now, and better ways to ensure that people who are thinking of undertaking a development, be that a housing project or whatever across the entire spectrum, can work out early in the process whether the project's got legs. We can work out early in the process whether the development that's proposed is going to seriously destroy the environment, in which case it will not go ahead. The strengthening of these laws is critical—it is absolutely critical—to protecting our environment. As much as these laws are not supported by anyone and they've been in place for a very long time, the new legislation, which is complex and is undergoing significant amounts of consultation, will be built on three basic principles: clear national standards of environmental protection, improving and speeding up decisions and restoring trust and integrity in the system. Our plan is that we will, hopefully, halt the decline in our natural environment and actually start to repair it. Our Nature Positive Plan will provide stronger laws designed to repair nature. It will protect plants, animals, native species, endangered species and critical ecological environments. It will develop a new environmental protection agency, and they will help make those decisions, those important development decisions, early in the piece to stop unviable projects going ahead—unviable in terms of how they impact our environment. There will be more certainty for business. They will save time. They will save money. There will be faster and clearer decisions. That is the right thing to do for business. It is right to tell them upfront that their project can't go ahead because of its impact on the environment. It saves them time and money, and it saves everyone a lot of grief. The environmentalists will then have a clearer pathway to see what is going to go ahead—what projects are really just flying a kite and aren't going to progress, and those that actually are going to progress. The EPBC Act has to be reviewed every five years, and the last couple of reviews have turned out some pretty damning results. The most recent one, which was done in 2019 by Professor Graeme Samuel, found that our laws don't protect the environment and that they do not work for business either. They are unwieldly and costly laws, they are time-consuming for business, they don't provide certainty and they've led to widespread distrust in the system. Professor Samuel got to a consensus point between business groups and environmentalists in his review. He made a series of recommendations that are linked together and considered the full spectrum of people interested in this arena and in the full spectrum of what developments are required and what environmental protections are critically essential. To understand the Samuel review and look at the State of the environment report is to be deeply concerned about the state of our environment and deeply concerned about how it's going to progress over the coming years. There's a conflation of so many different issues, and we are seeing their hard impact on our environment. I understand the concerns of Senator Hanson-Young, particularly in relation to any potential unconventional gas developments in the Northern Territory that stem from the Beetaloo potential projects, the Beetaloo inquiry and the extensive work that Senator Hanson-Young has done on this issue. We have offered the services of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development to the Northern Territory government to assist them in assessment that may be required for any gas projects seeking their approval. This is the committee that will actually do the work once the expanded water trigger is legislated under the laws that the government is revising for the EPBC Act. That is exactly the process that will be followed, so, in the interim while we are finalising the legislation, we have offered that committee to do work for the Northern Territory government to ensure that those assessments are done in line with how we regulate other forms of gas. We know that the environment is in bad shape and is getting worse. We as a government know that we are revising those laws. We hear from some people that we're not going fast enough. I appreciate that, but it is really complex. There are a lot of views to take into consideration, and it is a very unwieldy piece of legislation. We are going as fast as we can, but we are in bad shape, and let's not forget that. We need to protect our environment. We need to do everything we can to protect our environment for the long term because that report found that Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent, and for the first time Australia has more foreign plant species than we have native. A habitat the size of Tasmania has been cleared, and plastics are choking oceans—up to 80,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometre, which is deeply alarming. It's not surprising that we have done so badly, given we had 10 years of neglect and mismanagement by the Liberal-National government. They axed the climate change laws. Imagine where we'd be if we'd had 10 years of climate laws acting in this country. Imagine how much better a situation we would be in now. They ignored the Samuel review into environmental laws—twice they ignored the review. They sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and are continuing to do that as we speak. They promised $40 million for Indigenous water but didn't deliver a penny and didn't deliver a drop. They set recycling targets— Senator Ruston 243273 We'll see how well you go. Senator GROGAN 296331 Yes, we look forward to that. Thank you for your interjection, Senator Ruston. They set recycling targets with no plan to actually deliver them, cut highly protected areas of marine parks and cut funding to the environment department by 40 per cent. So it's not really surprising that we're in the situation that we're in now. Ten years of abject failure, and now it's our generation and the generations coming behind us—it's our children; it's our grandchildren—who are going to have to suffer for that neglect. Thank you again, Senator Hanson-Young, for putting forward this bill. We have the same provisions being introduced into the EPBC reforms that we'll be bringing forward. We look forward to those finding a happy pathway through this chamber. 09:30 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023 [No. 2]. As an environmental lawyer, I feel very strongly about this issue and I'm speaking in strong support of this bill that my colleague Senator Hanson-Young has brought to the chamber today. I must say it's somewhat reminiscent of a decade ago, when we were here having precisely this same debate. If you'll indulge me, I'll give a little history lesson. The EPBC Act was brought in by the Howard government. That probably tells you all you need to know about whether it actually protects the environment. Sadly, all indicators are that our environment is in terminal decline, and these laws are part of the problem. They never had a water trigger when they were introduced. They still don't have a climate trigger. They still allow the minister to tick off on any damage he or she likes. There is no fetter on ministerial discretion to approve projects, even if they would send a species to extinction or completely trash a World Heritage area. There is no preclusion on what the minister is allowed to tick off on. There is no protection for critical habitat, no consideration of cumulative impacts. Honestly, these laws are absolutely terrible. When they were first introduced, passed and took effect, in 1999, they were really bad, and they have remained substandard ever since. In 2011, when I was in this place and Independent member Mr Tony Windsor MP was in the other place, when the coal seam gas companies were first trying to get their claws into our aquifers and to pollute our climate for their own private profit, Mr Windsor and the then Greens leader, Bob Brown, and I got together and had a chat about how our environmental laws really should consider water impacts and how, with these massive coal seam gas projects and large coalmines rapaciously spreading across the country with no regard for damage to groundwater, aquifers and surface water and certainly no regard for the climate, there needed to be some federal oversight of that impact on water. Mr Windsor introduced a bill into the House, and I introduced a bill into this place, in November 2011 that said that, yes, the federal government should consider the water impacts of coal seam gas and large coalmines. We knew at the time, and we know even more now, the serious threat that unconventional gas, including coal seam gas, presents to aquifers. They punch holes through aquifers to get to coal seams to extract the gas. They say they've sealed these holes, but actually, in a Senate inquiry that I participated in at the very start of my term, in July 2011, we heard about leaking gas from some of these pipelines. We heard really damaging evidence that suggested that the sealant on these aquifer punctures actually doesn't last and that, essentially, the risk of contamination of aquifers was very real. So there was not only the leaking of gas but also the cross-contamination with fracking fluids in aquifers—essentially the threat to poison our water supply. That's why the Greens and Mr Windsor at the time moved to add water to our environmental laws, because it's not such a great idea to poison your water supply, is it? It's not such a great idea for agricultural productivity or for nature or for continued existence. Of course, the big parties in this place opposed that. They didn't want a water trigger. They didn't think it was their responsibility. They thought that the states were doing a you-beaut job. No worries, mate. Go back to sleep. Thankfully, 18 months later, the then Labor government changed their mind and introduced the water trigger. The Greens supported that and said: 'Great. Sorry it took you 18 months. You could have just agreed when we first proposed it, but thanks for coming to the party.' But, at the time, it didn't include unconventional gas. They left out shale gas and tight gas. That meant that WA, where they don't have coal seam gas but have shale gas, was completely unprotected and that these voracious companies, many of which are trying to savage the Canning Basin in the north of WA, didn't have to think about the water impacts of their gas extraction activities. Likewise, in the Northern Territory, which, of course, is now being savaged by Tamboran Resources and others that want to frack the Beetaloo basin, no, they didn't deserve to have their water protected. It was a very east-coast-centric approach that was taken in 2013 by the then Labor government. The Greens moved amendments. I checked last night; it was on 17 June 2013 that the Greens moved amendments to add shale and tight gas to the water trigger to protect water in WA and the Northern Territory, because there is no scientific difference in the threat and the damage to aquifers from coal seam gas and shale and tight gas extraction. All unconventional gas extraction has the same risk to aquifers—and, I might add, it has the same risk to the climate, and that, unfortunately, is still a festering sore that has not been fixed in our environmental laws. They still don't require consideration of climate impacts. The Greens will continue to push for that, and we have a private members' bill to do that too. We've been pushing for that for many a year now. Fast forward 10 years. Ten years on and the Labor government have committed to protecting groundwater and aquifers from the impacts of tight gas and shale gas extraction, but where is the legislation? They said it would be here by the end of the year. It's not here. It's been 10 years since the Greens first moved to extend the water trigger to cover all forms of unconventional gas extraction. After 10 years, you finally promised to do it, but you still haven't done it. We're here today, saying: 'Here's the bill. It's a very short bill. It's very easy drafting. It's a very simple concept.' It says that you should have protection for all aquifers from unconventional gas extraction, not just protection from coal seam gas but from tight and shale gas as well—from all forms of unconventional gas. We are reminding the Labor Party that this is their policy and they've said they'll do this. Well, here's your opportunity. We've done the work for you. It didn't take much. We did it 10 years ago. We're doing it again today. We're urging this chamber to think seriously about getting on with protecting these aquifers, because we know the Beetaloo is on the brink of moving from exploration to production, and Tamboran Resources, who already have a very chequered history in how they've dealt not only with First Nations mobs up there but also with operations so far. I believe they've already been pinged for spraying toxic wastewater all over the site—and, when I say 'pinged', I mean it, because there were barely any consequences at all. These licences are about to transition from just exploration to production. At the very minute, the water trigger won't be able to impact that. The federal government won't be able to say: 'Hang on. We're really worried about these aquifers. We're hearing the concern from the scientific community. We're hearing the concern from First Nations owners. We'll at least take a look at this.' At the moment, they can't. The law doesn't allow them to do that. So this is a fix that the Beetaloo needs. This is a fix that First Nations communities need. This is the fix that our environment needs to have a halfway decent water trigger that actually properly considers the full impacts. You have to be very patient in this job, I'm learning. It took us 10 years to get the national anticorruption body established. Again, you folk all laughed at us when we first proposed that in 2009. Now, in 2023, we have the independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, and that's great, but, boy, it took a while, didn't it? Here we are, 10 years on from proposing that the water trigger be expanded to unconventional gas, and we're still arguing the same thing and the two big parties still haven't done it. Despite one big party now having committed to doing it, they haven't yet followed through. We're very patient people, but I'm afraid we are running out of time. This won't fix everything. As I said at the outset of my speech, this doesn't actually stop new coal or gas. It merely says that the minister for the environment has to consider the impacts on water resources from unconventional gas extraction. The minister is still entirely able to consider those impacts and say: 'Well, actually, I don't care. I'm going to tick off on this anyway because my big party just got big donations from the fossil fuel companies. My big party just got taken on a private plane trip by Tamboran Resources.' Our laws are that broken. This is the smallest of fixes. It enables the federal environment minister, whoever it might be at any point, to do the right thing for our water resources, for First Nations community and for the environment, not for the big gas companies. Whether the minister chooses to use those powers will be up to them, and we'd love to fix that too. But this would simply enable the minister to think about the impacts on water resources before ticking off on yet another fossil fuel project. We've already seen this environmental minister tick off on five new coalmines since taking office. I thought we'd had a change of government, and I'd hoped we'd have a change of climate policy, but the fossil fuel approvals have not slowed down, the climate impacts are still not required to be considered under our federal environment laws, and the water impacts can be ignored unless you're coal seam gas. If you're shale or tight gas then the law says: 'We don't care. Go right ahead. Be our guest. Here, have some more donations. Carry right on.' So this bill would enable protection for those WA and Northern Territory aquifers, and it would deliver on the Labor Party's belated promise to do this. We're still waiting, and the proverbial and literal Christmas is coming. I want to come back to the fact that this will not stop unconventional gas extraction if the minister doesn't want it to stop. In fact, what the Greens would like to see, what the science dictates and what the International Energy Agency is saying is that we can't afford any new coal or gas. These laws would permit the environment minister to still tick off on new gas, even if there are going to be dastardly impacts on aquifers—which, likely, there will be. Actually, what we'd really like to see is a ban on new coal and gas, and we have separate private member's legislation to achieve that. It's what the science says. It's what the community wants. It's certainly what our aquifers and our climate deserve. But this bill—10 years after we first suggested this—would simply provide the same protection to aquifers in the west and in the Northern Territory as those on the east coast have had for some time now. It doesn't fix the fact that First Nations communities don't have free, prior and informed consent over these projects. My colleagues Senator Cox and Senator Hanson-Young have been working really closely with traditional owners in the Beetaloo basin, who are desperately worried about the impacts on their land, on their culture and on their continued enjoyment of an area of which they've been caretakers for millennia. This bill doesn't give First Nations communities the right to say no. Again, we have a separate private member's bill to do that. Again, I introduced that in 2011. Twelve years ago we said that communities should have the right to say no to coal seam gas, coal and unconventional gas on their land. Our farming communities are precious. First Nations communities deserve the right to say no to projects that going to stuff up their land and water, poison the drinking water and potentially lower the groundwater level table from this gas fracking. This bill is one part of the puzzle. The Labor Party say they want to do it, but time is ticking, folks. Here's a bill. It's a very simple bill. It doesn't fix all of the problems with unconventional gas extraction, and it still leaves a gaping hole in our environmental laws where there is no climate trigger, which we'd like to fix. It still leaves the environment minister with the ability to approve new coal and gas, which we'd like to fix. It doesn't help communities to say no to coal or gas, which, again, we'd like to fix. We've got other private members' bills that fix all of that. This bill simply says that the water trigger should not be blind to the needs of WA or the Northern Territory. I commend this bill to the chamber. 09:44 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland We need to get to the crux of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023—that is, that this bill wants to expand on the water trigger powers of the federal bureaucracy. Having been working down here in Canberra for the last four years, I can tell you that there is only one word that ever comes out of the lips of the federal bureaucracy when it comes to actually trying to get resource projects up in this country, and that is 'no'. We have got state governments who are responsible for approving these regulations. I want to qualify that we should protect our water reservoirs and aquifers, by all means. I'm very passionate about that. But I don't see why we should give more powers to the Commonwealth when these companies already have to jump through hoops at the state level. All this will do is effectively create another hoop that the mining companies have to go through to get their projects approved. I have to mention that I haven't heard anything said this morning about the impacts of renewables—in particular, wind turbines and the bisphenol A that is in the epoxy resin on those wind turbines, as well as what's going to happen to all the cadmium and everything as solar panels erode—because there is no recycling scheme for renewables in this country. It seems to me that it's targeted at one particular industry and not at another industry, and that is why I'm pleased to say that the coalition is opposing this bill. There's no need to have the federal government step in and override the powers of the state. I'm happy to assess the powers of the state. I've often said we need to have a federation convention that looks at the duplication of roles and responsibilities between the state and federal governments, because there is way too much bureaucratic tape in this country, and it's killing industry and progress. If there's one thing I know from my time travelling across the world it's that Australia is world class and looks after its environment better than most other countries in the world—if not all other countries in the world. The claim that somehow our environment is in terminal decline is absolute rubbish. It's funny—I look back at old photos, and at our property in western Queensland, for example, there's more mulga out there than ever. That's come at the expense of the grasslands—the Mitchell grass and things like that that should be growing there—because we're not allowed to manage the mulga like we should. By all means, let's protect the environment, but at the same time we already have departments at the state level. I know, for example, that Link Energy was fined. The Labor state government at the time was a bit slow getting onto them, I have to say. That impacted my home town of Chinchilla, and that was known for a long time. But we need to take these claims of doom and gloom with a grain of salt. I know Professor Terry Hughes from North Queensland made a claim in a Senates estimates inquiry a number of years ago that there was coal dust all over the Great Barrier Reef, and that claim was absolutely debunked when they looked into it. I was up at Abbot Point with the current member for Dawson—he wasn't the current member then—and I couldn't get over it. We went out to the Abbot Point coal base, and we had a look at the terminal where the coal gets shipped off overseas, and there were stingrays and giant trevally swimming around. The water was pristine. It's the same for gas. Gas has been bubbling out of the Condamine River for hundreds of years. My family was a pioneering family in that area in the early 1900s, and there were sightings then of the gas bubbling up through the river. It's not to say that fracking isn't a risk. It is a risk, and we have to address those risks properly. But I don't think that we have to go through two hoops and have two departments, especially a department in Canberra which we know—and we saw it with the Voice—is totally out of touch with the rest of Australia when it comes to trying to keep people in real jobs. It was their crazy neoliberal ideology in the Treasury department that effectively shut down manufacturing in this country. So Canberra bureaucrats are the last people we want to trust when it comes to looking at resource development projects in this country. There's another thing I want to touch on when it comes to the water trigger act. I'll give a shout-out here to former Labor prime minister Ben Chifley. In some respects, he instigated the first water trigger act. I like to raise this because he invoked national security powers under section 51(vi) of the Constitution after World War II in order to get the Snowy Hydro scheme up and running. At the time, the states were initially against it. Ben Chifley very cleverly said that water security in this country is a national security concern, and I think it is. He went ahead and starting building what became one of the great infrastructure projects this country has ever seen. I would love to see the same thing continue to happen today. I'll come back to the east coast. I know some of the other people have been talking about Western Australia and the Northern Territory. We need to get water. We shouldn't be taking water out of the Murray-Darling. We need to be getting water into the Murray-Darling Basin. There is a very big river that runs parallel with the Great Dividing Range, from just below Warwick all the way down to Grafton, and then it runs out to sea. That's the Clarence River, and it runs from the north to the south for about 200 kilometres and then, from just above Kempsey, north for another 100 kilometres. The beauty of this river is it runs parallel with the Great Dividing Range. It stays high, and it's in a high-rainfall area. This was part of the original John Bradfield scheme, and this is something I think we need to look at. We often talk about bringing water from the north to the south, which is unfeasible. It won't work. The water will evacuate before it even gets to Lake Eyre from North Queensland. I'm not against pushing it west as far as Hughenden, but we really need to look at doing it in the Northern Rivers in New South Wales. The beauty of doing it on the Clarence is that you only need a 10-kilometre pipeline to get it back to the Gwydir River and into the Copeton Dam, and from that point onwards you've got it into the Murray-Darling system. The water would come in above the Macquarie Marshes. One of the paradoxes of the Murray-Darling system is, if you actually drive west from Sydney to Bathurst, you'll see the start of the Macquarie River there. It's very easy to remember the Macquarie runs north, and the Lachlan—Lachlan Macquarie I often refer to—will run south-west. But the Macquarie runs north-west all the way right up to the Burke and then turns around and runs south. So we get a lot of evaporation. It's got to go up through the Macquarie Marshes—and my colleague from New South Wales Senator Cadell is nodding—and you get a lot of evaporation just through there as well. If you can get that water into Copeton Dam from the east coast and push it through, you could take, say, two or three per cent out of the Clarence—that wouldn't touch the sides with the Clarence—and you would actually get an enormous amount of water. That would make a big difference to the Murray-Darling system. It's not just about irrigation but also about environmental flows. That is something I think that we need to look at doing, along with other projects like changing the barrages in South Australia. It's absolutely ridiculous that the lakes in South Australia are actually fresh water when naturally they're estuaries; they're actually more salt water or brackish water. We let all the water go from Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria down to South Australia, and we get large amounts of evaporation. From my home town of Chinchilla, where we sit on the mighty Condamine—that flows all the way to South Australia, but, for every 11 litres that crosses the border, only one litre makes it to South Australia. So I ask you: why are we letting so much water evaporate or, when it does get to the sea, run out to sea rather than utilising it on the way down? I'm all for introducing water efficiency projects. Another one would be at the Menindee Lakes. Yet again, we get lots of misinformation. Whenever the Menindee Lakes dry up, we get all this, 'Oh, the Menindee Lakes are dry.' But the thing about the Menindee Lakes is they're only 20 feet deep, and you get 12 feet of evaporation a year. So, if you don't get much rain in western New South Wales, it's going to basically evaporate in two years. I know that because, where our property is in western Queensland, we've got a house dam that's 20 feet deep, and, if we miss out on summer rain, we're going to run out of water by the end of the second summer. So that's something that, yet again, doesn't get spoken about. But, if you want to stop the evaporation, put a wall halfway through and, rather than have it sitting at, say, six feet over a wider area, halve the surface area and have it at 12 feet, so you have less evaporation. It's things like that that we need to look at. Anyway, I'm glad to say we won't be supporting this bill today, not because we don't care about the environment and not because we don't want to preserve our water reservoirs and basins but because we don't need any more red tape. You're better off taking that money spent on the Canberra bureaucracy and actually building a dam on the Clarence River, like Ben Chifley did after World War II, pushing some of that water out into our Murray-Darling system. 09:54 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to also add my voice and make a contribution to my colleague's private senator's bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023. I want to echo comments made by my colleagues Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Waters about the importance of this bill and the urgency with which we need to do this. This bill is, in fact, something that the government should have already done a long time ago. It ensures that all forms of unconventional gas development, or fracking as it's known, are assessed for their impact on water. Before I go on, I want to address some of Senator Rennick's comments in relation to red tape. In my home state of Western Australia they've tried to introduce a mining exploration fee of $859. If anyone in the community—an environmental group, a traditional owner group—wants to object to any exploration in relation to the impact on water, this is being used as a tool to silence them. The red tape that is being referred to in this chamber today is in fact being used to silence the people who are objecting to its impact. We know fracking uses an exceptional amount of water. There are varying types, with one estimate from the United States government saying that one well alone can use between 5.6 million and 36 million litres of water. The Northern Territory government has said fracking can use the equivalent of eight to 12 Olympic-size swimming pools of water during the lifetime of just one well. And many fracking sites will have multiple wells. It's estimated that the Beetaloo Basin will have approximately 90 wells, which is remarkable, when you think about it. The current legislative framework does not require the government to take this into account when issuing those environmental approvals for fracking. This requirement currently exists for coal-seam gas development and large coalmines if they will have a significant impact on the water resource. Senator Waters has already mentioned the impact in my home state of Western Australia and in the Northern Territory, where some of this is quite urgent. Closing this legislative loophole in a timely manner, which we're trying to do but which the government refuses to—despite the fact that they committed to this change—is also, as Senator Hanson-Young outlined, recommended in the Northern Territory's independent scientific inquiry into fracking of onshore unconventional reservoirs in the Northern Territory conducted by Justice Pepper as well as the Senate inquiry into oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo. So, the question begs: why are we ignoring all that? Why are we continuing down this pathway, when we know water is so important for the life of this planet? It's a precious resource that we can't afford to throw away, particularly for dirty climate-destroying fossil fuel projects, without some serious scrutiny and proper consideration. As a First Nations woman I know water is so crucial, particularly for the cultural vitality and resilience of my people, my culture and my identity. It has a very important place for us. That includes within our artwork, our sacred stories and our songs. And I think all of us in this place are familiar with the land rights movement that led to the monumental High Court decisions and legislation that included the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 and the Native Title Act 1993. However, the water rights were intentionally excluded from native title. Despite native title covering 40 per cent of this landmass, First Nations people have only 0.2 per cent of surface water being covered under this legislation. Water is such a sacred resource for First Nations communities. As I 've already said, it holds life, sustains us, sustains our country. It's an integral part of what links us to our identity. It is something that in the old days we used in order to define our language boundaries, our ceremonial places, and it underpins many of our land management practices. The health of our water sources is vital to the health of our community in more ways than just having water to drink and rivers to fish in. As I've said before in this place, First Nations people are not separate from country. We are interconnected with it. We are one with country. That includes our land, our waters and our sky. So, if country is healthy, we are healthy. I come from both freshwater and saltwater nations, and it is in fact my birthright to protect and care for country and for water, and I do this with pride for my people. I remember as a child hearing some of those stories about the creator spirit. If you listen closely in a welcome to country or an acknowledgement of country that people give, when they talk about country, they talk about the creator spirit. In my country it's called the Wagyl. The Wagyl was a creator spirit who created the waterways. He created the land formations. Further north, in my Yamatji nation, it's called the Bimara. Many of the other First Nations people around the country also have that birthright. They are fighting the same fight for their old people. It's in our blood. The importance of that can also be seen in my home state of Western Australia, where the people who belong to the Martuwarra River, which is famous for its recent flooding in Western Australia, gave a bark petition to the Western Australian government about saving a famous swordfish that is not found anywhere else. They talk very intimately about its worth, its importance and its spiritual connection for the local people who surround the Martuwarra. That's why traditional owners from right across this country are fighting fossil fuel projects and water licences that already do and will impact sacred water sources and destroy our underwater cultural heritage. We are seeing this especially in the Northern Territory, where the Roper River is under threat from careless water licences that are being issued by the Northern Territory government. The Roper River is the second-largest river in the Territory. It spans 400 kilometres and has a catchment area of 80,000 square kilometres. It is home to plant and animal species that are not found anywhere else. That is the remarkable place of our continent, of our nations that make up Australia—that in fact there are plant and animal species that are not found anywhere else. More importantly, this is a vital source for First Nations people in the area that that spans, across the Roper. It's all under threat by this government and the Northern Territory government. This bill is so integral and so crucial in making sure we close those loopholes. The traditional owners from the Beetaloo are already seeing the impacts of fracking, particularly the impact on the Roper. They were recently in this building, and they issued a statement which I'd like to read out now on their behalf. It says: 'Water is life for us. We need it to survive, and to keep country and culture healthy. Our communities will be some of the most affected by shale gas fracking. Our land is sacred. We don't want to see it fracked. Our water is sacred. It should not be poisoned. We can already see the climate changing. It is already getting too hot. We see the changes in the bush, in the seasons. We know this planned gas fracking will make climate change worse. We know if this fracking goes ahead we may not be able to live on country like we have for thousands and thousands of years. We need your help to keep our culture, our water, our climate and our children's futures safe. We ask you to pass laws in parliament this year to (1) extend the EPBC water trigger to shale and tight gas; and (2) revise the significant impact guidelines for the water trigger to require the consideration of the cultural and spiritual value and significance of water resources to First Nations people.' It's unbelievable that we've just come out of a referendum with a government that says it's listening to First Nations people's voices. Last night I went to an event about Indigenous protected areas, where we had ministers from this place and from the other place talk about land and sea country and the importance of protecting that. You can't do that under ranger programs and then not pass laws in this place to make sure that the job gets done, because we put the onus onto the people and then they have to go into courts and mount legal cases to contest their country and their water not being protected. This bill helps achieve one of those asks from people whose country will be most impacted by fracking and the water that it uses. The Greens have listened, and we implore people in this place to also listen and, most importantly, to do so with the sense of urgency that this deserves and absolutely needs. This is the birth right that I've been given, and it is our obligation to do so. These traditional owners and many others across the country are simply doing what we do best, protect our country, because we know that we've protected country and country will continue to protect us, but we must preserve that as we have done for 65,000 years. The Native Title Report 2008 talks about Indigenous people having the 'right to the equal exercise and enjoyment of our human right to water'. This is really important because although people say that the states already have legislation, that they already have a mandate to do this and the Commonwealth doesn't have a place, the Commonwealth does have a place. There are seven different international instruments that talk about the protection of our rights to water as Indigenous peoples and we are signatories to all of them. So it is important for us in the Commonwealth to ensure that there is consistency. Right now on my desk is the draft report of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs inquiry in relation to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. How can we talk about domesticating that law when we're not even going to line it up with what we're talking about today? How can we do that when we're not going to protect the precious water sources that Indigenous people have a special connection to? We must ensure not only that it continues to be protected under international law but that it also provides the rights for us to practise, revitalise, teach and develop our culture, our customs and our spiritual practices and to utilise our natural resources in the way that we should be utilising them and not to have them destroyed in the interests of industries that don't have to live there, that don't have to raise their families there, that don't have to collect bush food there. Those industries can walk away from that. It is those communities that are left behind. It is First Nations people in the north of Australia who are at the forefront of this impact, who are fighting the impacts of climate change, who are fighting the big fossil fuel companies in this country—and, my, they are putting up a mighty fight against them. I'm so proud of those nations for standing tall in relation to this. I implore the government to do the right thing today and support this bill to ensure that there is a water trigger in the EPBC Act in order to protect those communities, to make sure that we can hold people accountable for the impact that that will have on their waters, because they will be the first people moving into towns, moving away from country, becoming sicker and dying a lot faster, and that in fact is about closing the gap. It is our obligation, senators, to think about the impact of that legislation and to know that we have the power to change that. We have the power to make laws in this place to ensure that we are in fact closing the gap, because, as I said, healthy country means healthy people and it means a healthier environment. 10:08 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I thank Senator Hanson-Young for bringing forward this urgent bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023 [No. 2]. In the short period of time that I've got left, I would like to highlight how proud I am that the Greens are in this place today standing up for farmers and rural communities on the Liverpool Plains in New South Wales who have been fighting Santos tooth and nail to stop their precious water supplies from being contaminated. Isn't it fascinating that the Nationals and the Liberal Party come in here every week, trying to get up a Senate inquiry, saying that they're standing with rural communities around the country and trying to stop the roll out of renewable energy, but not once have I heard them come in to this chamber and stand up for the farming communities on the Liverpool Plains and in other parts of our country that are fighting tooth and nail to stop these dirty fossil fuel companies chasing their profits and putting farmers' livelihoods at risk. It's the Greens that are doing that and the farming communities around this country are recognising that it is actually the Greens that are standing up for their precious land and their precious water. I am very keen to hear the contributions from the National Party and the Liberal Party. In the 15 seconds I have left, how about I lay down a challenge to anyone from the Liberal and National parties to come into this chamber and stand up for farmers on the Liverpool Plains? The fracking issue in this country has been front and centre and a significant matter of public interest now for many, many years, and yet not once has anyone from the National Party, who say they represent farmers—in fact, I correct myself; I think Senator Canavan said famously a few years ago that they are now representing the fossil fuel industry, the coal companies and the gas companies rather than rural communities. This bill before us today is an urgent reform. You can't eat coal and you can't drink gas. Expanding the water trigger would protect our farms and rural communities from the damage that coal seam gas wreaks on life-giving groundwater. Senator Cox has so eloquently put the impact this has on our first Nations communities around the country, and Senator Hanson-Young has talked about why we need this to protect our environment. Well, as Greens agricultural spokesperson today I'm here to talk about why we should be protecting our rural communities. Santos is currently attempting to steamroll communities on the Liverpool Plains, communities made up of hardworking Australian farmers who are opposed to fracking in some of the most productive and prime agricultural land in this country. Coal seam gas extraction has the potential to significantly impact groundwater and aquifers and jeopardise our farmland production. First Nations across the country, notably in the Beetaloo in the Northern Territory and Pilliga in New South Wales, have spoken about the dangers of the impacts of coal seam gases on cultural heritage underpinned by healthy groundwater and aquifers. Expanding the water trigger— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 The time for the debate has expired. BUSINESS 12 BUSINESS Rearrangement 12 10:12 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to move a motion in relation to a message to the House of Representatives, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended s would prevent the opposition moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to allow a motion relating to a message to the House of Representatives to be moved and be determined immediately. Last week, the Senate unanimously voted for four of the 21 schedules of the government's omnibus IR bill. These are PTSD provisions for first responders, family and domestic violence provisions that would strengthen existing legislation, adding silicosis to be aligned with asbestos and important redundancy provisions where a larger business becomes a small business and people who hang on the longest to support that business often end up not getting a redundancy. It seems to me that politics is largely about negotiation and compromise, and it seems like that has been done in the Senate, where four parts of the 21-part omnibus bill have been split at the will of the Senate and passed without even a call for a division. Clearly, there is very strong support in the Senate. We have endorsed these bills, we have passed them, and the House of Representatives should now look at these bills. My commitment to people in the ACT when I was elected was to look at each piece of legislation on its merits. I'm not here to be a rubber stamp, and I'm not here to stand in the way of much-needed protections for workers. But I am here to ensure that there is scrutiny and to stand up for the ACT. There are clear loopholes that need to be closed. No-one is going to stand up and say that what Qantas has been doing with labour hire is okay. But this is an enormous bill. It has a 500-page explanatory memorandum and 200 pages of legislation. Whilst there are clear issues with, say, Qantas, this bill goes economy wide. When you have that, you have to be looking at the unintended consequences. As an example, for those unfamiliar with some of the details of this bill, as it's currently drafted, the same job, same pay provisions would apply to athletes. You could have Nathan Cleary being paid the same as a first-year rookie. I think anyone in the community would say, 'Hang on; that's not what this is intended for.' Based on the fact that these measures are economy wide, parts of the crossbench have said we need more time to deal with this—noting the Jacqui Lambie Network's constant concerns about resourcing for the crossbench. Senator Watt, in answer to a question from Senator Lambie, talked about wage theft and industrial manslaughter. I'd be very happy to consider those provisions separately now, but it also highlighted that there is some misunderstanding about this omnibus bill. Minister Watt made a very clear point about wage theft, but my understanding is that the provision related to wage theft comes into effect 1 January 2025, so there's a long time until anyone will be done for wage theft. I think it adds to the argument that, with provisions that come in on 1 July or later, we should take the time to get this right for the Australian workers and for small business. We should do our duty as elected representatives to really ensure that we're working through any unintended consequences and sorting them out. For the last industrial relations omnibus bill, the government moved 150 amendments to their own bill on day 1 in the House. We've had dozens and dozens of amendments to this bill flagged by the government, but we're yet to see those details. When it comes to these four provisions out of 21, there's clear support from the Senate. This is about simply sending a message to the House of Representatives that the Senate has made its position clear on these four bills, and it's time for the House of Representatives to deal with them. 10:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government denied the senator leave to move a motion, and we don't support the motion to suspend standing orders. I'll confine my remarks to the suspension rather than the broader issues around industrial relations reform. The first point is that we have an incredibly busy program to get to today, and so this is, I think, an attempt to waste the Senate's time on a matter where we have other, more pressing and more important issues. The Senate has— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I listened to people in silence, so I would appreciate having the same courtesy extended to me. The point is—and Senator Pocock made it—that the Senate formed its view on this last week. That is clear to the House of Representatives. Now, what the House of Representatives chooses to do with that is a matter for the House of Representatives, not the Senate. That vote was held last week. If it was clear, as Senator Pocock argues, then let the House of Representatives determine how to deal with that. I don't think we would take too kindly to the House of Representatives telling us how to order our program when we come and sit in this place. I can't recall the House of Representatives ever passing a motion to tell the Senate how to order its priorities and programs, and I don't think the Senate should be doing that to the House of Representatives. I think the more pressing issues today are to get to the government's legislation program and allow the House of Representatives to do what it needs to do with whatever work gets sent its way from the Senate. I understand there was the opportunity for a procedural issue to deal with that this week and that it wasn't dealt with appropriately by the opposition. That's my understanding. So it was probably more about the opposition in the House of Representatives getting their house in order if they wanted to prioritise this matter this week. That wasn't done, and it's over to the House of Representatives to choose how it deals with this. But the Senate has set times for these matters. We dealt with the private senators' bills last week. There is absolutely no reason why this should be taking up more time this morning, and I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher, that the question be now put, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:25]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

10:28 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise, on behalf of the coalition, to support the suspension motion that has been moved by Senator Pocock. The irony of us now having to speak on it is that, had the government allowed Senator Pocock and the crossbench to move their motion—guess what, everybody?—we would already have had the vote. The Senate would then have shown its will to the chamber and—guess what?—we would already be on the next item of business. We've had the minister stand up here and give us a lecture in relation to wasting the time of the Senate, when I think a clear reading of Hansard will show that the actions taken by the government in (a) first denying leave, and then (b) seeking to put the vote, have, ironically, chewed up the time of the Senate. Let us have a look at the motion that has been put before the Senate by Senators Lambie and Pocock: 'motion by leave'—if leave had been given, as I said, we would already have voted on it—'that a message be sent to the House of Representatives requesting that the House immediately consider the following bills together'. They are the bills that employers across Australia have agreed, the crossbench have agreed and the coalition have agreed are the non-controversial parts of what is an incredibly complex, incredibly controversial piece of legislation. But, in the spirit of being constructive and assisting the government in passing the parts of its legislation that the Senate agrees can actually go through, this motion has been moved today. Ironically, when this was looked at by the Senate last week, I note that the entire chamber itself agreed that these bills should be passed. What then occurred, though, when it went to the House—and it's a quirk of the way the House works, and I see that Minister Burke is now saying, 'The opposition didn't quite get it right, and it meant we couldn't debate them.' As Senator Gallagher has correctly pointed out, the House controls its own destiny. They could have listed the bills on the Notice Paper. They could have done a lot of things if they actually wanted to debate these bills. If they wanted to work in a bipartisan manner with the opposition and with the crossbench, they could have rearranged their own business last week, and, guess what, we wouldn't have to be standing here today having a debate in relation to the four bills that, as I said, are considered to be the non-controversial parts of the legislation—the parts where employers across Australia have said, 'We agree these are important'—and we could actually put them through. Colleagues, I think sometimes Labor forget what the role of the Senate is. Indeed, the last time I checked, we were called the states house, the house of review. We can continue with our important role as senators and discharge the responsibility that our respective states have bestowed upon us, and that is to properly scrutinise the rest of the legislation. I do have to say I was a little concerned by comments made by Minister Burke in the other place last week which, in fact, were reflected in the comments that were put forward by the government about the motion moved last week—that apparently a vote for the motion was a vote for delay. When questioned about this in the House, Minister Burke made it clear that the government had no intention of following the will of the Senate in terms of when the committee reports next year, on 1 February, and they were going to bypass that; they wanted the committee to report earlier and they wanted to ram the bill through. Well, guess what? Sometimes in life you have to understand that that is not the will of the Senate. The will of the Senate was clearly articulated. In terms of the scrutiny of this bill, the Senate will now report next February. After that, it's up to the government. As for the four pieces of legislation we have here, the will of the Senate is clear: they should be passed. Again I go to the irony of now being able to speak to this motion. Had the government just allowed Senator David Pocock and Senator Lambie to put their bill, it would have already been voted on and the government could have got on with the business of the day. But you decided to be too smart by half. 10:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What an absolute load of rot. If you want to hear about irony, the irony is Senator Cash of all people coming and lecturing the Senate about proper procedure and obeying rules and laws and procedures. I don't need to go over the history of Senator Cash when it comes to those issues. But let's be very clear about what's going on here. What's going on here is a deal between the coalition and parts of the crossbench to engage in delay tactics. This is all about delay tactics so that we can't get to government business, which would enable us to deal with very important bills that the opposition has been very clear about for some time now, those being amendments to the Crimes Act, amendments to the Bankruptcy Act and, of course, the migration amendments that the government has put forward today as well. These are really important matters to deal with. They deal with matters of national security and personal security. But, instead of engaging in debate about those things and addressing the issues that have arisen, particularly in relation to the High Court decision of a few days ago, we've got more games between the coalition and parts of the crossbench to delay debate on those bills. We have Senator Cash, on behalf of the opposition, saying that we could have dealt with this quickly if only we'd given leave to Senator Pocock. Why then did the opposition decide to vote against the closure motion that we just moved only moments ago? We attempted to close debate on this nonsense motion that seeks to direct the House of Representatives to do something, which the Senate, of course, has no right to do. It is a nonsense motion, with all due respect to Senator Pocock, and it's being supported by the coalition in an attempt to delay debate on the important bills: amendments to the Crimes Act and the Bankruptcy, and, of course, the migration bill. Every minute we spend dealing with this nonsense motion that seeks to direct the House of Representatives on what to do is a minute that we are not dealing with those issues around the Crimes Act and the Bankruptcy act or those migration amendments. All week, we've been lectured by the opposition about the need to get on and deal with the migration amendments, and now, as we attempt to move towards that and in the process deal with those other amendments on the Crimes Act and the Bankruptcy Act, what do we see the opposition do? We see them again facilitate delays, filibustering and motions from the crossbench which have absolutely no power to find the House of Representatives in the first place. We think that we should get on with government business. I note that this motion wasn't moved before we had private senators' time this morning. I note that it wasn't moved before we even got to private senators' time. It was only moved when we had the opportunity to get into government business and deal with those important matters of national and personal security which we've been attempting to deal with this morning. Senator Ruston 243273 You're guillotining, Murray. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, you are out of order. Senator WATT 245759 The opposition had the opportunity just moments ago to assist us to close this debate and move on to those bills, and instead, as they did all of last week, they enabled filibustering from the crossbench in order to stop government business from proceeding. We should get on with it, we should not be entertaining nonsense motions that have no binding effect on the House of Representatives and we should deal with those important matters of national and personal security that the government has put on the agenda for today. 10:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland What an opportunity for the government to show that it believes in truth, integrity and honesty. What do they do? They run away from it. Senator Watt's talking about the delays. No, it's scrutiny. It's proper scrutiny. That's all we want. We want some urgency around bills that the government brought into the parliament saying that they were urgent and vital. What do we see? He's leaving. They're running away from it. Urgent bills? That's why we want to support this suspension: so that we can vote on the motion of Senators Pocock and Lambie. This is about the Senate exercising the will of the Senate. The will of the Senate said, 'We want these bills passed urgently.' It went down to the House and has been put on the bottom of the order. To me, that shows the inconsistency with what Labor is saying about these bills and what the truth is. It proves that Labor is lying about the urgency of these bills. Senator Pocock reminded us very clearly of the long time frame for the wage theft provisions to be put in place—2025, I think he said. What is the government covering up? We'll see more when we get to scrutiny of the other five sections of that bill, but I've been championing the cause of Hunter Valley and Central Queensland coalminers, and the only way that an enterprise agreement less than the award can be put in place is through an agreement with the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter Valley. That's the only way. There is no loophole in the coal industry; it just needs enforcement of the Fair Work Act, which the Fair Work Ombudsman has dodged, the Fair Work Commission has dodged, the MEU has contravened deliberately, and some employers and some labour hire firms have deliberately compromised. There's no loophole; this is just designed to deflect and cover up. We will be getting to the bottom of this because I'm tired of these miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley being put down. They're still on below-award pay despite what the government is saying. We want scrutiny. We want it now. 10:39 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland It's very interesting to hear Minister Watt making his comments about the order of business in this chamber. I've been in this chamber for seven years now, through both sides of government, whether it be the coalition or Labor. I have never seen a government as dysfunctional as this government is at the moment. They guillotine and shut down debate. They don't even know what legislation they want to put up on a daily basis. They don't inform the Senate. We don't get the bills. We don't know what is happening. It's at the last minute that the government deals with issues. When Senator Watt said, 'We want to deal with important bills,' I remembered the Prime Minister taking to the election that the workers of Australia were the most important people and that we've got to look after their rights and look after the workers. It was always 'Labor for the workers.' That's what I've always heard. But what has happened is that a bill has been put up that carves out of their dysfunctional IR bill to deal with the four most important issues for the workers of Australia. I'll tell you what the problem is: they're embarrassed that those four carved-out issues in the IR bill have passed the Senate, and they don't want it to go to the lower house and be dealt with. That's the whole problem. They don't want it dealt with and passed in the lower house. They couldn't possibly knock it back. It's part of their bill. They don't want to knock it back, because then they won't know what to do with the rest of their bill, since they know it won't get through the Senate. You're not interested in the Australian people, in the workers out there. This is all politics that you are playing. Minister Watt got up and said 'important bills'. I'll tell you what those are. One is the Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023. It's administrative. All it does is move the time when someone is declared to be bankrupt to a few days down the track of when they actually get it in the hands of the authorities to declare them as bankrupt. The other is the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023. It is basically giving the minister the ability to extend the parole period. That's what it's about. The other part is about illicit drugs coming into Australia. 'Oh, we don't want illicit drugs in Australia,' but here you are in the Australian Capital Territory, where you're allowing them to have illicit drugs, and you said nothing about it. So why is this bill so important? Like I said, it's hypocrisy at its finest. This should have been dealt with. If you really care about the workers out there, then you should just pass this. You've wasted the time of the Senate. You could have done it, but you've actually stopped it. It could have been passed. If you had let it go to the lower house, if you had let it pass today, it would have proven to the Australian people that you really do care about them. But this has proven you don't. You really don't. It's all politics that you're playing at the expense of the Australian people, which disgusts me to no end. I hope that people see this. I hope that people see through the Labor Party and the games that you play in this place. Get your act together if you want to lead this country. 10:42 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the question be put. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that standing orders be suspended. 10:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—President, I ask that the government's opposition to this motion be recorded. Question agreed to. 10:44 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That a motion relating to a message to the House of Representatives may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate. Question agreed to. 10:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—Again, I ask that the government's opposition to that motion be recorded. 10:45 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie, move: That a message be sent to the House of Representatives requesting that the House immediately consider the following bills together: (i) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023, (ii) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, (iii) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, and (iv) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 Question agreed to. 10:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—Again, I would like to record the government's opposition to that motion. Consideration of Legislation 16 10:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move: 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: Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023 Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023. Question agreed to. Rearrangement 17 10:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the following bills be called on prior to government business order of the day no. 1: Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023; and Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023. Question agreed to. BILLS 17 BILLS Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 17

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 17 10:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023. The coalition will be supporting this bill. On behalf of Senator Paterson and myself, we will facilitate its passage through the parliament. There are three schedules to this bill. Schedule 1 is in relation to parole. This schedule makes a technical amendment to clarify the Attorney-General's decision-making powers in relation to parole under part 1B of the Crimes Act. At present, there is a mandatory requirement for the Attorney-General to make a parole decision in relation to a federal sentence before the end of a non-parole period. However, sometimes it is impossible to meet this obligation. This can happen in two circumstances, the first being where an offender is eligible for parole immediately following sentencing because of time already served while held on remand. Second, it can happen when an offender's sentence is reduced on appeal. When this happens, the legislation is unclear on what the Attorney's obligations are and the legal consequences that flow from the inability to make a parole decision within the stipulated time frame. This schedule puts beyond doubt that the Attorney can still make a decision to grant or refuse parole in these cases. Schedule 2 concerns drug importation. It changes the way we make regulations to list substances as border controlled plants, drugs and precursors. Currently, to deal effectively with drug importation, we need appropriate powers under the Criminal Code and the Customs Act and appropriate cross-references under the Defence Force Discipline Act. The changes to the regulation-making powers allow substances to be listed in a consistent and flexible way that lines up across all three acts. Importantly, the changes will also allow the government to say that some substances are only treated as serious drugs or precursors for specific and narrowly defined purposes. Specifically, the provisions of schedule 2 allow a substance to be listed as a border controlled plant drug or precursor only in relation to specific offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code or elements of those offences. As we understand it, the government's intent is to ensure that we are able to deal effectively with dual-use precursors. These are substances that have a legitimate use but can also be turned into illegal drugs. An example is a substance called butanediol, which has a range of legitimate uses as a solvent and in the manufacture of plastics. However, it is also a precursor and substitute for the drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, also known as GHB, or liquid ecstasy. These chemicals are imported legitimately under the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019, but it is clear that more action is needed to ensure that the import of these dual-use precursors is effectively disrupted at the border. We understand that the government intends to use these amended regulation-making powers to make targeted regulations that line up with the licensing system under the Industrial Chemicals Act. The government tells us it intends to use these regulation-making powers to ensure that unlawful import is treated as an offence under the Criminal Code. But targeting the regulations appropriately will ensure that it does not inadvertently criminalise legitimate actions of licensed businesses that follow the rules. We think this is a sensible amendment that allows our drug laws to keep up with changes to the importation of precursors by serious organised crime groups. In relation to schedule 3—and I will speak on behalf of the shadow minister, Senator James Paterson—this schedule deals with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, otherwise known as the ACIC. The ACIC is one of our premier organisations, bringing together law enforcement, national security, policy and regulatory agencies to combat serious and organised crime. The provisions of this schedule relate to technical processes of the ACIC board and follow changes commenced under the former coalition government and continued by Labor in government. These technical and validation provisions preserve the status quo and ensure that there is no legal doubt about decision-making processes undertaken by the ACIC so it can continue to combat serious and organised crime. As I said, the coalition stands ready to facilitate the passage of these bills through the parliament. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:52 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023. I first note that we are yet to see a credible explanation from the government about why this bill should not have the usual scrutiny—should not at least lay on the table for five days in each house—to allow stakeholders, to allow engaged observers, to have a look at these significant amendments to the Crimes Act, the Australian Crime Commission Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Act and the Defence Force Discipline Act. These are significant proposed changes that are going to affect three quite significant parts of legal practice. Perhaps the most significant proposed change is the one that's snuck in at the end: the amendments to the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. Notice of this bill was given I think two days ago, was introduced in the other place yesterday and is being rammed through while it's literally still warm from the photocopier. What's the rationale for doing that? Well, to be quite frank, there is none—at least, no publicly available rationale is being given by the Attorney. I note that my colleague the Leader of the Greens in the other place, Adam Bandt, sought to get some kind of justification from the Attorney about the unseemly rush of the bills; what is the rationale? The answer from the Attorney was basically, 'Computer says no—we're not going to tell you why we're rushing through legislation without the usual scrutiny.' Of course, that's when warning bells start going off, particularly when you are dealing with things such as validating prior actions of the Australian Crime Commission and actions that have been taken subject to decisions of the Australian Crime Commission. This bill has three distinct elements to it. As I said, we've been asked to ignore standard legislative due process and rush all three elements through, as an urgent bill. In order to assist our understanding of the need for urgency, we of course sought a briefing from the Attorney-General's Department, and from Attorney-General's office, to explain the need to forgo the usual legislative process and rush this legislation through. We had the briefing—and I mean no disrespect to the officials there; no doubt they were doing the best they could, with clear instructions, no doubt, from the Attorney's office—but no credible explanation was given for the urgency of any of the three elements of this bill. The aspect of the bill that creates most concern is the proposed retrospective authorisation of covert surveillance and other activities of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. In 2022, just last year, this parliament, after due process, supported significant reforms to the way in which the ACIC authorised certain controlled activities. We're talking about covert surveillance, wire taps—very intrusive activities that the ACIC authorises and that are then often done by the AFP and other offices. These are activities that trespass across most of our accepted traditional liberties: the right not to be snooped on by the government unless there's a valid reason, the right to privacy, the right to due process. Those are all compromised when a decision is made by the ACIC to permit covert surveillance and other activities. Our law has always said that if that is going to be authorised it should be legal. It should be appropriately authorised with a clear legal basis for it, because otherwise we just have illegal snooping by the police and covert agencies—ASIO and the like. And from illegal snooping by security agencies it's a pretty short pathway to trashing the rule of law. If you allow the illegal use of covert surveillance on Australian citizens, that is a pretty clear trashing of the rule of law. As I said, in 2022 this parliament supported significant reforms to the way in which the ACIC authorised controlled activities. We were told it was to simplify things, to make it simpler going forward. That rationale seemed quite clear. We scrutinised the legislation, we spoke with stakeholders and we supported those provisions, which we were told were designed to clarify and simplify the process and ensure that, going forward, there was clear legal certainty and protection for activities that they purported to authorise. At the time, there was nothing from the Attorney-General's Department and nothing from the Attorney-General himself to suggest that actually things needed to be sorted out because activities up to that date had been illegal. There was nothing at all about that in the debate in 2022. It was all about, 'We're just tidying things up going forward.' There was no mention at all that, perhaps for a decade, the ACIC had been purporting to authorise activities which, as it turns out, were probably illegal. There was nothing at all about that in 2022, so, in good faith, we reviewed the changes to the mechanisms and supported those legislative measures. Now we're being asked—without any due process, without any proper scrutiny—to support this bill to provide broad retrospective legal protections for activities undertaken by, or in accordance with authorisations given by, the ACIC. It appears, from our reading of the haste and the smoke and mirrors, that the bill is designed to save the Attorney's bacon and to protect past illegal activities by these agencies, because there is no other explanation for the rush. We have been given no other credible explanation as to why these retrospective changes are needed, absolutely no explanation, despite asking what the urgency is. The only credible urgency is that they know the activities were illegal, and they've probably been illegal for a decade, and a whole bunch of covert warrants and surveillance is likely to have been found to be unlawful and therefore won't stand up in court. If that's the case, why didn't the Attorney just say it? Not only should there be frankness and honesty with us as senators and legislators in this place, there should be honesty with the Australian public. Now we have this disturbing twostep. In 2022 they put through the change, which was allegedly just to simplify and clarify, but now it looks like it was underpinned by a bunch of advice that maybe what they'd been doing up to that point was illegal. Now, a year later, we have legislation being rushed through with unseemly haste to retrospectively validate everything that happened before 2022, and we have no explanation given for it—none at all. The only credible inference you can get from that is they know there's a bunch of quite significant legal challenges in the pipeline, all ready to happen, about unlawful illegal activity by federal agencies over the last decade. There is no other explanation for this. The Greens believe you should legislate with honesty and directness. The Greens believe the parliament and the government have an obligation to be honest and frank with the Australian public when they are doing things like this, and we're getting none of that from the government—none at all. When we ask direct questions, we get obfuscation and diversion and a 'watch my hand' process. It is not good enough. It is not good enough when you're talking about legislation that so significantly infringes upon our traditional rights and liberties in a society that is meant to be governed by the rule of law. We won't be supporting this bill, and we don't support the undue haste. We call upon the government to be frank next time and to be honest. We call on the government to tell us their real motivations, and perhaps if they had said to us, 'Well, look, we have real concern here about a bunch of authorisations that were done in good faith and we thought were lawful and had the right checks and balances in them but because of a technical drafting error may have been unlawful, and we're worried that a number of significant organised crime figures may avoid legal sanctions because of this legal technicality, so we just want to fix that,' and they'd laid out their credible argument, absolutely we would have listened. There potentially might have been an explanation for haste, and there might have even been a credible explanation for retrospectivity. But in the absence of any frankness, any explanation, just 'bundle it up and trust us', it is not how legislation is meant to work. We're in the same week that the government has had a significant part of its detention regime for refugees struck down as unconstitutional. Are we meant to take on trust the same lawyers advising the government that it is all fine? It just does not stack up. The other aspects of this bill, apparently also urgent, are to clarify that the Attorney can make a parole determination even when the strict period for that time for termination has expired, and the determination will be valid. This is needed because there are occasions when the non-parole period is shortened on appeal or by a period that is credit for time given in remand. The government says that the Attorney has been, for as long as anyone can remember, making parole decisions in those circumstances, and, even though the time has expired for the making of those decisions, those decisions have been accepted. There has never been a legal challenge to it, as far as we can see, but they want to regularise it and make it lawful. We can see an argument for regularising it, but for the life of me I can't make out the urgency. You've been doing it for a decade or more, so why is it suddenly urgent in mid-November 2023? It's not; it's pretend urgency. This is something you tack onto the ACIC provisions to try and hide the real rational for why you're rushing stuff through. You're just tacking it on and pretending this is urgent. It's not urgent; there's no creditable argument that it's urgent. It's probably not bad, but it sure as heck isn't urgent. The other thing we're told is desperately urgent is the changes to the way in which certain drugs are controlled drugs at the border and require a relevant license before they can be imported—and providing for a significant criminal penalty if those precursor chemicals are imported without a license. Again, there may be a credible argument for that. Apparently, this practice has been under review since 2019. There have been substantial concerns raised about it. This may be a relevant way of regulating it; it may be appropriate to put in place a significantly higher criminal penalty for the unlicensed importation of these drugs. We haven't had a chance to talk with stakeholders in this space to know about what impacts it will have on the plastics industry and on other chemical processes in the country. We haven't had a chance to do that because it's still warm off the photocopier! What's the rational? Why the sudden rush to put in place these new criminal provisions? What's the urgency? There is no urgency. It's mock urgency; it's pretend urgency. It's other thing that's been attached onto this bill to try and disguise the real rationale, which is they're in a red-hot legal mess because of the ACIC's unlawful activities for the last decade. So why not just say it? Why not just say they're in a red-hot legal mess because the ACIC has been unlawfully purporting to authorise certain covert activities for the last decade and it needs an urgent save from the parliament? I don't know why they're not being honest about it. It would be useful to hear the Attorney explain why that hasn't been clearly explained. But I can tell you now that it's not urgent for any credible reason given by the government. None of this is urgent, and we won't be supporting it. 11:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank the honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023. The bill will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of key provisions in the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. These amendments are required to support the proper administration of justice and combat serious and organised crime. Given we are approaching the hard marker of 11.15 am, I might leave my remarks at that. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brockman, W. E. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

NOTICES 20 NOTICES Presentation 20 COMMITTEES 21 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 21 Report 21 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the 14th report of 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 14 OF 2023 16 November 2023 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 7.08 pm 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023, the Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023, and the Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 February 2024 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral); and (b) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 April 2024 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bill not be referred to committees: Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Australian Education Amendment (Save Our Public Schools) Bill 2023 Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023 Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023 Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement: Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 (Anne Urquhart) Chair 16 November 2023 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023 Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023 Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023 Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023 Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To further scrutinise and understand the matters raised within the proposed pieces of legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Stakeholders including the Agriculture industry and other interested parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): December 2023—February 2024 Possible reporting date: 5 February 2024 (signed) Print name: Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 (and associated Bills) Reasons for referra1/prindpal issues for consideration: Scrutiny of specific provisions Possible submissions or evidence from: Department Primary industry stakeholders Biosecurity stakeholders and experts Primary industry research and development stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): Late January (if needed) Possible reporting date: 5 February (signed)· Nick McKim Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To understand and scrutinize the Bill further. Possible submissions or evidence from: Various stakeholders Committee to which bill is to be referred: Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): January 2024 Possible reporting date: 26 April 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: These bills represent the second legislative step towards implementing the Government's commitment for Australia to acquire conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 (ANNPS Bill) creates a framework to regulate the nuclear safety aspects of activities relating to conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. This includes facilities that will support the construction and operation of these submarines in Australia. Key aspects of the ANNPS Bill: Establishes nuclear safety duties that will apply to those who conduct regulated activities; Creates a licencing regime for persons to conduct naval nuclear power activities; Establishes a new regulator, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator, which will include inspectors, who will have monitoring and compliance powers; Introduces offences and civil penalty provisions for contraventions of nuclear safety duties; and Clarifies the operation of the certain Commonwealth, State and Territory laws that would otherwise apply to the nuclear-powered submarine enterprise. The Transitional Bill ensures that any licences issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and in accordance with the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act), to be treated as Australian naval nuclear power safety licences for the purposes of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2023 (ANNPS Act), on commencement of that Act. Possible submissions or evidence from: Defence, the Australian Submarine Agency; current regulators (particularly ARPANSA); Australian Shipbuilding Federation of Unions; DFAT; ANSTO. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): Possible reporting date: 26 April 2024 (signed) A.E. Urquhart: Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:15 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023, the bill be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 May 2024". 11:16 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 not be referred to a committee". The Australian Greens are not going to have a bar of the opposition setting up a committee inquiry that will provide a bunch of transphobes with a platform, under parliamentary privilege, to attack transgender people. We are not going to have a bar of transgender kids and transgender folks being attacked by a bunch of right-wing transphobes. That is exactly what Senator Antic, and I'm sure Senator Roberts— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, on a point of order? Senator Roberts 266524 On a point of order: those remarks from Senator McKim are inappropriate under standing order 193, particularly in regard to him making a personal reflection. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, there wasn't a personal reflection, but I am going to ask that Senator McKim be considerate of his language, because it was sailing close to the wind. Senator McKIM JKM Trans folks in our community put up with an awful lot. They are attacked on a daily basis. They are attacked for who they are as humans. Their very existence as people is called into doubt by extremist fascists who are transphobes. The amount of rubbish that you see just on social media, on an unprotected platform, is appalling. We are not going to facilitate providing parliamentary privilege to those kinds of people. Trans rights are human rights. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan on a point of order? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 Yes. It is very clear from that last comment who Senator McKim is referring to. Therefore I ask that you ask him to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, it is not clear. I will ask Senator McKim if he wishes to clarify. Senator McKIM JKM Well, if the hat fits, Senator O'Sullivan can put it on if he wants to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, resume your seat. I ask that this debate be respectful. That is not respectful, and I would ask you to withdraw that comment. Senator McKIM JKM I withdraw that comment. I will clarify my comments: I'm aiming my comments at transphobes; that's who I'm aiming them at. I'm making the point that trans rights are human rights. Trans men are men, and trans women are women. That is the position of the Australian Greens. We will fight for that position on every front that is opened to us, at every opportunity that is provided to us to do that. We will ensure that we do everything we can to protect trans people from the vicious, disgraceful acts they are subjected to every day, and that includes by doing everything we can to make sure that this bill is not referred to a committee which will provide parliamentary privilege to the very transphobes we are talking about. 11:20 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland (): I speak in support of Senator Antic's amendment. The Senate has portfolio committees to inquire into legislation for a good reason. Every committee is, from time to time, asked to inquire into a bill that raises issues of significance, as this bill does. The conventions and procedures of a committee inquiry are well suited to handing controversial issues such as this. Such inquiries are conducted all the time, because they're essential to the legislative process. The Senate is open to denying a bill due process, so the question must be asked, why? What is it about this issue that has the Greens on the rampage, the ALP in hiding and the globalist wing of the Liberals rushing to cross the floor to avoid talking about it. Childhood gender surgery, whether physical or chemical, is not an insignificant matter. It is life changing, often life ending and irreversible. When young gender transitioners realise that it is irreversible and they regret their decision, that can often lead to them choosing suicide, to end their life. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money is involved. More importantly, the lives and health of tens of thousands of Australian children are at risk. There's no room to vote this matter on feelings or fear. We need to get the facts. Gendered identity surgery on children relates to their physical health and to life itself. I appreciate that there are those even on the conservative side who refuse to question childhood gender surgery. That's their right. Australians are increasingly asking why there is a cover up. Who are you protecting? I have received representatives from constituents from many different states approaching this issue from many different perspectives. Whenever One Nation has brought these perspectives to this place we have been shut down. That is not democracy. That is not the exercise of Senate powers without fear or favour; it is the complete opposite. It is control and shutting down. It is censorship. I have promised my constituents I will bring their perspectives to this place, and I will never take a step back from doing that fairly and honestly. The public have turned against causing chemical and physical mutilation and harm to children in the name of gender identity. The Senate will have to deal with this issue in the near future, so let us do it now. Let us get on with the job. Send this bill to a committee and let Australia contribute to the debate. Let parents have their say. Let victims of childhood transition have their say. And, yes, let trans people have their say. I point out, that all that is done by this bill that I co-sponsor with Senator Antic and Senator Babet is found mainly in section 8. It prohibits doctors prescribing surgery or puberty blockers to people under the age of 18. That's all it does. A health practitioner— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim on a point of order? Senator McKim JKM The point of order is relevance. The question before the chamber does not go to the substance of the bill. It goes to whether or not the bill should be referred to a committee. I ask that Senator Roberts be relevant to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, these are broad-ranging discussions. Senator Roberts is being absolutely on point to the amendments before the chamber. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Section 8, clause 1 reads: A health practitioner must not knowingly provide gender clinical interventions to a minor that are intended to transition the minor's biological sex as determined by the child's sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profiles. There are then details of the medical procedures and the prohibition of prescription drugs that achieve the same purpose except for the medical treatment of disorders of sexual development. Section 12 restricts the expenditure of Commonwealth money—taxpayers' money—on treatment. A committee improves bills, a committee scrutinises bills and a committee, above all, gives an opportunity for the people of Australia to have their say. I know many trans people. I'm pleased to meet them and proud to have them as friends. I communicate with some of them regularly. This is not about transphobia; this is about making sure that people have the right to have a say in this bill, which is absolutely essential. I commend Senator Antic's amendment to the Senate. 11:24 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I wasn't going to contribute to this debate, but, following Senator McKim's intervention, I think it's very important to put on the record that Senator McKim refused to engage in any of the actual details that are included in this bill. Senator McKim—through you, Madam President—gave a speech around very broad generalisations of rights without in any way tackling the major issue that Senator Antic is bringing to this chamber, which is a matter of political controversy around the world. That is the simple question of whether minors—children—should be able to receive life-altering surgery or pharmaceuticals before the age of consent. That's all it is. I think that is a perfectly legitimate question to ask, because there is no more important thing we can do in this chamber than to protect children. We have to be very clear here. I will just briefly go through some of the details of what is actually happening at the moment, rather than making accusations that different senators are reprehensible, deplorable people. What is actually happening right now is that young children in Australia are receiving pharmaceutical interventions that have not been approved or assessed for the use they're being put to. In particular, there's a chemical called Lupron, which is a TGA-approved drug for testicular cancer. It's been approved for use mainly by adult men who are afflicted with testicular cancer. It has not been approved or assessed by the TGA for use by children. There has been no assessment of that, yet in gender transition clinics in our country it is being used for minors. That is allowed to be done because it's an off-label use. It's being prescribed within the TGA's approved limits, but it's an off-label use. Some observant senators might remember that there's been some controversy about off-label uses in recent years. People who had the temerity to use ivermectin for COVID, for example, were completely and utterly abused, with people saying that it was absurd and that it hadn't been tested for COVID. Here we have a drug that has not been assessed or tested for use in minors but is allowed, with little oversight, to be used on minors in Australia. Given the grave risks involved in it being applied to minors, I think it is only right and proper that we have an assessment of whether or not this is the right path to go down. There are no refunds for the children that might be afflicted by these pharmaceutical or surgical interventions. It's very hard for anyone to reverse the changes that are inflicted by these chemical interventions. I would have thought the Greens political party, more than any others, would understand the notion of the precautionary principle. Surely we should be very cautious about rolling out these types of interventions when we do not know what their long-term ramifications are because they haven't been assessed by a proper medical trial yet. They are being used in an effectively unregulated fashion. Finally, there is nothing unique about our parliament or Australia looking at these issues in depth, given the controversies we've seen overseas. Many would know about the Tavistock clinic in the UK, which has been shut down by UK authorities because of the evidence that damaging and life-altering surgeries and other interventions were conducted on children. There was a long assessment of that institution in the UK, and, following that, it was shut down. Unfortunately, because this debate is being hijacked by those who prefer insults to debate, we are not having a similar assessment of the ramifications of what is occurring in our country on this issue. This bill gives us an opportunity to do that. I would encourage other senators to vote for this. Whatever views you have, what is there to hide here? Why are we trying to hide away from any parliamentary assessment or oversight the impacts on our children? It is far time we conduct this inquiry. I commend Senator Antic for bringing this to the chamber, and I hope that we can have an inquiry into a matter that is affecting the lives of children in this country. 11:29 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I want to make a very brief contribution. I want to associate myself with the comments that Senator Canavan has just made and to make this point in addition: this is simply a referral to a committee. Senator McKim raises some concerns about it opening itself up to hurtful and hateful adverse reflections that presumably could come from submitters to that inquiry. The committee has processes and the powers to deal with submissions that would cause harm to people. I think it is entirely appropriate for this issue to be referred to this committee to be looked at and to be examined. I note that the Greens actually chair this particular committee, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. That committee has the capability to be able to deal with adverse reflections and, of course, provide protection if it was necessary. I think this is a sensible reference of a bill. It's an important bill that's worthy of debate, and this motion should be supported by the Senate. 11:31 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I commend Senator Antic and Senator Roberts for bringing this to the chamber. I've tried on three separate occasions to have a hearing into this, an inquiry into it, and it was blocked every time. The fact is that it is exactly right. I commend the Greens for standing up and fighting for koalas and fish, salmon, and different things. But we're talking about humans here. We're talking about our children—about protecting them and their rights as well. We have seen in television interviews and even on Insight, when they did a story on this, what happened to children—absolutely distraught, sorry that they went through this whole process. We've seen it, as Senator Canavan said, with Tavistock, and we've seen it around the world. This has become a business at the expense of children's lives being destroyed, and that's what we need to consider. Why I pushed my notice of motion to have an inquiry on this is that a group of mothers, half-a-dozen mothers, went knocking on the doors of members of parliament and senators to explain to them why it was important to have an inquiry into this. These are mothers, parents, who have seen their children go through this process and become—what can I say? They don't lead normal lives anymore. One mother said that her daughter now, who is 21, is in her bedroom for three months at a time. She will not come out of her bedroom. The mother has to leave her food at the door. She doesn't want anyone to see her because she's changed from a female to a male after taking these puberty blockers, the hormones that she needed to change. She's now got hair on her chest and hair on her face, and she's balding. She is absolutely distraught. It's destroyed her life. She said, 'All we need is to let people hear our story and understand what is happening in our community.' Another reason why it's important now is that the Labor Party just passed their family law, and, under family law now, you can give all rights to the custodial parent, so the other parent no longer has a right or say in the health or wellbeing of the child. Parents have lost their rights here as well. You've given control of it to only one parent. I just feel that this is so important. People in the gallery are listening to the debate here. Australians, our job here is to give people the right to have a voice. If it goes to an inquiry, then we can hear what the people have to say and make an assessment of that and how we best deal with this. People are sick and tired of being shut out—that they don't have a say. It's important that we do this. And I am disgusted by those on the coalition side who have not voted on this or who stay out of the chamber because they do not want it to be seen how they vote on this. It is not about an individual. This is about doing what's right. In the criminal amendment bill the government wants passed today, they are worried about the drugs coming in from China through vaping. They're worried about the drugs that children may be taking through vaping. What about the irreversible drugs that are being given to children? Puberty blockers are irreversible, and that's what people won't admit. They don't want to say that. That's why it's so important to have this inquiry. I'll tell people: this has become a money-making business. In America, there was only one clinic. Now there are 300 across the whole country. It's estimated to be a $200 billion industry, at the expense of our children. That's what needs to be discussed here. If you really worry about lives and about drugs, let the inquiry happen. What are you hiding? What are the Greens hiding? Why don't they stand up for Australians on this? Why don't they stand up for the children? That's what this is about. I cannot understand Labor's stance on this and why they are so opposed to the people having a voice. That's what it's about: the people having a voice. I will appeal to those on the coalition side, those half a dozen who haven't voted or who voted against this as well. Put it in an inquiry. Let the people be heard. It's no skin off your nose. That's what our job is. You must stand up for everyone in this nation. So I call on people. Let the people have their say. The people should be heard. You know what? Outside this chamber, we went to a referendum on that. The people had their say. We allowed the people to have their say as far as the Voice went, but we're not allowing the people to have their say— (Time expired) 11:36 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to speak in support of referring the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 for inquiry by a committee. We have an age of consent in this country for drinking, smoking, driving and voting, because we acknowledge that children are too young to make decisions. The impacts of gender-changing surgery for a child can last a lifetime. I think it's incredibly hypocritical that we have rules for our children to protect them yet we don't have rules and regulations on this and we do not want to scrutinise why we allow these changes to occur on a permanent basis. The other reason why I think it's very important to look at this is the right of parents and how much say they have in regard to decisions that their children make. I've been contacted myself, as I know fellow senators have been contacted, by many parents who are distraught about the changes that have been inflicted upon their children, some of whom later decide that they made the wrong decision. I think we need to give them a voice as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 There are two amendments before the chair. I'm going to deal with the amendment moved by Senator McKim. Senator Antic, are you seeking clarification? Senator Antic 269375 I am, just by way of procedure. I think I moved mine first, so I wonder whether you might take mine first. The PRESIDENT 112096 It's an amendment to your amendment, which was what I was explaining to the chamber, so I am required to put it first. Senator Canavan? Senator Canavan 245212 Sorry, President. I wouldn't normally do this, but given that this is, I think, going to be voted on along conscience lines, I don't actually have the amendments in front of me. It's not here. The PRESIDENT 112096 I can read both amendments, Senator Canavan, if that assists. I'll get the Clerk to read both amendments. The Clerk: Senator Antic moved: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023, the bill be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 May 2024". Senator McKim's amendment would have the effect of substituting for the words 'be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 May 2024' 'not be referred to a committee'. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment to Senator Antic's amendment, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to. A division having been called for and the bells being rung— Senator Canavan 245212 Could I seek some clarification? I apologise for not getting to this before the vote, but I just had a look at Odgers', and an amendment cannot be moved if it is a direct negative to the motion. My understanding is that Senator Antic's motion was to refer this to a committee. Senator McKim's amendment—which I only got just before the vote, so I apologise for my timing—was not to refer it to a committee. To me it seems that's a pretty open-and-shut clear case of being a direct negative and therefore the amendment should be ruled out of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm advised that an amendment can't be a direct negative to an amendment which has already been passed, but the longstanding tradition regarding the Selection of Bills Committee is that amendments which haven't been passed and which may appear to be contradictory can be put. So the question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:44]
(The President—Senator Lines)

32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:46 The PRESIDENT 112096 I shall now put Senator Antic's amendment as amended by Senator McKim's amendment. The question is that Senator Antic's amendment, as amended by Senator McKim's amendment, be agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. BUSINESS 29 BUSINESS Rearrangement 29 11:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That general business notice of motion No. 394 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 29 NOTICES Postponement 29 BUSINESS 29 BUSINESS Rearrangement 29 11:49 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That on Thursday, 16 November 2023 : (a) at 12.15 pm, bills be called on in the following order: Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023 Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023; (b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put at 1.30 pm; (c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (d) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm for the purposes of the bills only. 11:49 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move an amendment to the motion as circulated in my name around the chamber: That on Thursday, 16 November 2023: (a) at 12.15 pm, bills be called on in the following order: Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.2) Bill 2023 Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023 Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No.2) Bill 2023; (b) if the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 is not already concluded, then at the conclusion of debate on general business notice of motion no. 394, or at 5.30pm, whichever is earlier, the bill be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined; (c) the question on the second reading of the bill to be put at 7pm, or at the conclusion of second reading debate, whichever is earlier; (d) if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 11pm, the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put; (e) paragraphs (c) and (d) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (f) divisions may take place after 4.30pm for the purposes of the bill only; and (g) the Senate adjourn without debate once consideration of the bill is concluded." I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X It's the opposition's view, firmly, that the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill should be dealt with today. It is also our view that it should have been dealt with yesterday—or the day before, or indeed last week. And it is our view that the government should have been prepared not just yesterday or last week but last month or the month before that, because the government has known that the High Court was going to make a decision and a ruling on this critical issue. And the government has had indications in terms of comments made from the bench that that ruling may well have gone against them. Yet they have been caught flat-footed. They have not done the preparatory work. It is clear that this government has been dragged to the position of presenting this legislation to parliament. Last Thursday the opposition asked where the legislation was and why it wasn't coming forward. We want to see it passed. We will pass it today, but we will scrutinise it and we reserve the right to propose amendments to it. 11:50 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKIM JKM Well, here we are. We have had a confected emergency—created by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton; cheerled by the Murdoch media in this country; demonising refugees as creating a threat to the community—which has been blown out of all proportion. And what has the government's response been? To collapse in a screaming heap. The Labor Party's response, predictably, has been to collapse in a heap and let the opposition leader tickle their tummy. Make no mistake: this is Prime Minister Albanese's Tampa moment. A confected emergency is providing political cover for the Labor Party to engage in persecuting refugees. That's what's going on here. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment to government business motion No. 2 as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that government business No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Chisholm and amended by Senator Birmingham, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

Rearrangement 30 11:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That on Monday, 27 November 2023, at the conclusion of formal motions or at 5.30 pm, whichever is earlier, the notices of motion proposing the disallowance of the Competition and Consumer (Gas Market Code) Regulations 2023 be called on together and considered for not longer than 30 minutes, after which the question be put. Question agreed to. Consideration of Legislation 31 11:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: 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: Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023 Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 31 DOCUMENTS Immigration Detention 31 Order for the Production of Documents 31 11:59 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Paterson, I move: 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, 24 November 2023, any emails, file notes, briefing materials and other written correspondence provided to the Minister for Home Affairs, the Attorney General or the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs prepared in anticipation of the possibility of the High Court making a decision with respect to NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor, which found that sections of the Migration Act that had been interpreted to authorise the ongoing detention of the plaintiff NZYQ were beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth. 11:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move an amendment to the motion: (1) Omit all words after "making a decision with respect to", substitute "Plaintiff M47/2018 v Minister for Home Affairs and NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor, that the ongoing detention of the plaintiffs in those matters was beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll now move the amended motion. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 392, standing in the name of Senator Paterson and moved by Senator Askew and amended by Senator Chisholm, be agreed to. Question agreed to. Department of Health and Aged Care 31 Order for the Production of Documents 31 12:00 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria (): I move: That there be laid on the table by the Department of Health and Aged Care, by no later than midday on Friday, 7 December 2023: (a) all correspondence between the Department of Health and Aged Care and Miles Morgan Australia regarding the Future Fit program; (b) any correspondence between the department and Victorian councils exiting the Meals on Wheels program; and (c) all minutes, file notes, briefing notes or other documents relating to meetings between the department and Miles Morgan Australia associated with the Future Fit program. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 31 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 31 Membership 31 12:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 (): I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of a committee. 12:00 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland (): by leave—I move: That Senator Hanson-Young replace Senator Shoebridge for the committee's inquiry into the Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023 and Senator Shoebridge be appointed as a participating member. Question agreed to. BILLS 32 BILLS Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023, Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023, Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 32

Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

First Reading 32 12:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland (): I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 32 12:02 Senator 39801 Queensland CHISHOLM (—) (): I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (EXCISE) LEVIES BILL 2023 The agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors are major contributors to the Australian economy. Their combined gross value of production is expected to be worth $86 billion in 2023-24. In 2022-23, agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors made up 12.1 per cent of our exported goods and services, and employed 2.2 per cent of our workforce. The government recognises the importance of these sectors and the contribution they make to our rural and regional communities and the overall national interest. We're focussing on priority areas of climate, biosecurity, workforce and trade to bring benefits to industry and rural communities. This will help strengthen the competitiveness and productivity of our agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors and keep them on the path towards their goal of growing to $100 billion by 2030. Having an effective agricultural levy system is critical to this goal. The agricultural levy system is a long-standing, successful partnership between industry and the Australian Government to facilitate industry investment in strategic activities. It allows primary industries to collectively invest in research and development, marketing, biosecurity activities, residue testing and biosecurity responses. These investments are managed by the 15 rural research and development corporations (RDCs), along with Plant Health Australia, Animal Health Australia, and the National Residue Survey which sits in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Each year these bodies receive around $600 million in levies from farmers, producers, processors and exporters. In addition, more than $300 million is provided on average each year by the Australian Government to the RDCs in matching funding for research and development. The RDCs are the cornerstone of the agricultural innovation system. Their investments are helping capitalise on the significant opportunities that exist for agriculture, fisheries and forestry—new products, new markets and more sustainable, low emission practices. ABARES tells us that for every dollar invested in agricultural R&D, there is close to an eight-fold benefit to farmers. Continuing to invest in R&D will be even more important in coming years as we ramp up efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to a changing climate. And the work of Plant Health Australia, Animal Health Australia and the National Residue Survey is critical to Australia's biosecurity system and our access to international markets. The levy system in its current form has been in place for over 30 years and is the envy of the world. It allows government to collect levies at industry's request that can be invested in priorities that could not be funded by many primary producers on their own. However, as the legislative framework that supports the system has grown, it has become overly complex and inconsistent, making it difficult to understand and administer. There are more than 50 pieces of legislation governing over 110 levies across over 75 commodities and 18 levy recipient bodies. A 2018 review of the agricultural levies legislation found the legislative framework is necessary for a successful industry-government arrangement, but the current legislation is ineffective in meeting industries' needs now and in the future. The package of agricultural levies Bills will replace the existing framework with more contemporary, flexible and efficient legislation that better supports the system. The new framework, once enacted, will condense over 50 pieces of legislation down to five Acts and associated subordinate legislation. The new framework will provide the RDCs with more certainty about the matching funding they receive from the Commonwealth for research and development activities. It will provide for more flexible and proportionate compliance measures supporting levy collection. And by locating all levy details in subordinate legislation, the new framework will make it easier for industry's seeking to establish a new levy or to adjust the settings of their existing levies. The legislation will also operate separately from the new Biosecurity Protection Levy. The new framework will also provide a solid foundation on which to base any broader future reforms to further improve the operation of the agricultural levy system. The key features of the framework will remain the same. The new framework will not change existing levy or charge rates and will continue to support the fundamental principles of the industry-led system. The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 is one of five Bills that will streamline and modernise the agricultural levies legislative framework. It is one of three Bills in this package that will enable imposition of excise levies, customs charges and services levies. The two other imposition Bills are the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023 and the Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023. The three imposition Bills will enable existing excise levies and customs charges to be re-established in regulations, as well as enabling levies to be imposed on certain agricultural services. They include requirements for industry consultation when a new or amended levy or charge is proposed, before the new regulations are made. The three imposition Bills will replace five current levy and charge imposition Acts. Alongside the three imposition Bills are two companion Bills: the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023 and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023. A separate Bill, the Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, is also being introduced to manage the consequential changes and arrangements required to ensure a smooth transition to the new framework. This package of Bills is the result of extensive consultation over several years to ensure the new framework meets the needs of those who use and benefit from the agricultural levy system. Together, these Bills will establish a new legislative framework that provides the basis for a more effective and efficient levy system that will support more sustainable, competitive and productive agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors now and into the future. PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (CUSTOMS) CHARGES BILL 2023 The Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023 is part of a package of Bills that will streamline and modernise the agricultural levies legislative framework. This Bill is one of three imposition Bills in the package that will enable the new agricultural levies legislative framework to impose excise levies, customs charges and services levies. The two other imposition Bills are the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 and the Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023. Alongside the three imposition Bills are two companion Bills: the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023 and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023. A separate Bill is also being introduced to manage the consequential changes and arrangements to ensure a smooth transition to the new framework. Together, the package of Bills will establish a new legislative framework that provides the basis for a more effective and efficient levy system that will support more sustainable, competitive and productive agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors now and into the future. PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (SERVICES) LEVIES BILL 2023 The Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023 is part of a package of Bills that will streamline and modernise the agricultural levies legislative framework. This Bill is one of three imposition Bills in the package that will enable the new agricultural levies legislative framework to impose excise levies, customs charges and services levies. The two other imposition Bills are the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023. Alongside the three imposition Bills are two companion Bills: the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023 and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023. A separate Bill is also being introduced to manage the consequential changes and arrangements to ensure a smooth transition to the new framework. Together, the package of Bills will establish a new legislative framework that provides the basis for a more effective and efficient levy system that will support more sustainable, competitive and productive agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors now and into the future. PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEVIES AND CHARGES COLLECTION BILL 2023 The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023 is part of a package of Bills to streamline and modernise the agricultural levies legislative framework. The Collection Bill will replace the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. It will enable collection of existing levies and charges without significantly changing how they are collected, and will provide the framework required for collection of any new levies and charges in the future. It will trigger monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. This means more modern and flexible compliance and enforcement tools will be available to support compliance with levy collection requirements. And compliance measures and penalties will be proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement. This will bring the levy system in line with other Commonwealth regulatory schemes. The Collection Bill will also provide for the appropriate use and disclosure of information, while ensuring effective safeguards for sensitive information. Alongside the Collection Bill are four companion Bills: the three imposition Bills, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023, and the Primary Industries (Service) Levies Bill 2023, and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023. A separate Bill is also being introduced to manage the consequential changes and arrangements to ensure a smooth transition to the new framework. Together, the package of Bills will establish a new legislative framework that provides the basis for a more effective and efficient levy system that will support more sustainable, competitive and productive agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors now and into the future. PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEVIES AND CHARGES DISBURSEMENT BILL 2023 The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023 forms part of a package of Bills to streamline and modernise the agricultural levies legislative framework. This Bill will continue to enable investment in strategic activities for the benefit of levied industries. Levies and charges raised for research and development (R&D) and marketing will continue to be paid to research and development corporations for investment in R&D projects and marketing activities. Levies and charges raised for biosecurity activities will continue to be paid to Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia for investment in animal and plant health and responding to disease and pest outbreaks. Levies and charges raised for residue testing will continue to be credited to the National Residue Survey Special Account for the monitoring, testing and reporting of pesticides and chemical residues. The Commonwealth will also continue to match industry investment in R&D through the research and development corporations, to an upper limit of 0.5 per cent of an industry's gross value of production. The Bill consolidates provisions from 13 funding Acts. The Bill will make small changes to matching funding to reduce complexity and increase funding certainty for research and development corporations. This will include the removal of one of the limits on matching funding that relates to the amounts of certain levies and charges disbursed, which is largely redundant and inconsistently applied across industries. It will also include an earlier determination of the GVP limit, which will provide funding certainty to research and development corporations at the beginning of the financial year. The Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989 and Wine Australia Act 2013 will be retained under the new framework and all governance-related provisions will continue to apply to statutory research and development corporations. Funding agreements between research and development corporations and the Commonwealth will also continue to operate to complement legislative requirements. These set clear expectations for performance, administration of expenses and claims for matching funding. Alongside the Collection Bill and the three Imposition Bills, this Bill will ensure that the agricultural levy system remains fit for purpose and continues to support collective investment in activities to benefit agricultural, fisheries and forestry industries for generations to come. PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2023 The Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 forms part of a package of Bills to streamline and modernise the agricultural levies legislative framework. The Bill will facilitate a smooth transition to the new agricultural levies legislation, including for levy collection and disbursement arrangements and payment of matching funding to research and development corporations. This Bill will repeal 23 existing Acts that are, or will become, redundant upon commencement of the Bills package. It will also make consequential amendments to a number of other Acts. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 35

Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023

First Reading 35 12:02 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland (): I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 35 12:03 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill proposes urgent amendments to the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations to support the effective management of non-citizens released from immigration detention following the decision of the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. While the Commonwealth argued that previous detention settings were constitutionally valid, the High Court's decision requires the immediate release of NZYQ and similarly affected people from immigration detention. Let me be clear, the safety of the Australian community is the absolute priority of the Australian Government. While the High Court has not yet handed down the reasons for its decision, non-citizens affected by the NZYQ decision are being released on removal pending bridging visas as a result of the High Court's order. The purpose of this visa is to regularise a non-citizen's migration status pending their removal from Australia. Removal pending visa holders are all subject to a range of conditions, including key reporting and security conditions. Importantly, the removal pending visa includes requirements for the person to cooperate and to facilitate their removal from Australia. The Australian community reasonably expects that all non-citizens in Australia will obey Australia's laws. The Australian community also expects that non-citizens who do not meet the requirements for migration to Australia, will not undertake activities or engage in further criminal offending that harms the community and could prejudice the Australian Government's ability to facilitate their removal from Australia. As has been reported publicly, the NZYQ caseload includes certain individuals with serious criminal histories. The Government is working with state and territory criminal justice agencies, who have primary responsibility for community safety, and the Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force are providing updates to responsible counterparts. This collaboration is underpinned by an enduring law enforcement engagement mechanism, which was established before any individuals other than the plaintiff in the High Court case had been released. It has also supported NZYQ-affected people to move into state and territory post-offending programs, where appropriate. Let me be absolutely clear- depending on the nature of the offending, and the circumstances of the individual, the Government is working to ensure the individuals are managed appropriately under the relevant legal frameworks. The measures outlined in this Bill are proposed to complement and strengthen existing safeguards. Amendments to the removal pending visa are required to ensure the effective management of this cohort. Non-citizens with a history of serious criminal offending require appropriate and proportionate management while their migration status is being resolved. Specifically, the Government is proposing to amend the Migration Act to include: Appropriate amendments to the bridging visa conditions to protect the community, increase monitoring capabilities and reporting obligations, and secure ongoing engagement with the Department of Home Affairs. Including mandatory reporting obligations and discretionary curfew and monitoring requirements which will be imposed on a case by case basis only where necessary to protect the safety of the community, and New criminal offences for failing to comply with these reporting and monitoring conditions. These amendments are proposed to apply to all existing and future NZYQ affected non-citizens. This means non-citizens who are no longer able to be managed in immigration detention where there remains no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. New visa conditions The Government proposes new stringent visa conditions. These new conditions include a discretionary requirement for the visa holder to wear an electronic monitoring device, as directed by the Minister, and a requirement to comply with the electronic device condition. The purpose of this condition is to protect the community where an individual is assessed as posing an unacceptable risk of harm to the community. The monitoring device supports ongoing monitoring, which will help to keep the community safe. Electronic monitoring will also assist in preventing people from disengaging or avoiding engagement with the Government, which would hamper efforts to facilitate their removal. It provides an alternative means for encouraging compliance that will be more suitable in circumstances where additional support alone will not prevent reoffending. The Bill includes a discretionary requirement for the visa holder to adhere to a curfew for the hours specified by the Minister at the location notified to the department, as required. A rigorous assessment process will be undertaken by the Department to identify those individuals whose background and past conduct, including criminal offending, makes them of particular concern in terms of future offending. The Government believes that individuals who pose a particular risk to the community should be required to comply with additional visa conditions such as the wearing of an electronic monitoring device, and/or being locatable at certain hours through a curfew mechanism, where that is reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of the community. These measures are consistent with the legitimate objective of community safety, and the rights and interests of the public, especially vulnerable members of the public. The conditions relating to electronic monitoring and the curfew are proposed as discretionary conditions and will not apply to all visa holders. They will only be imposed where necessary for the protection of the community. Where appropriate, the conditions may be revoked. Other conditions developed for the NZYQ caseload are mandatory. These include: A requirement for the visa holder to seek approval before doing any work with vulnerable people—this includes work with children. This new condition ensures that proposed employment by the non-citizen is appropriate and consistent with the purpose of the removal pending bridging visa, and reflects community safety considerations. Under this new condition, the visa holder will be required to obtain Ministerial approval before taking up employment in certain occupations relating to vulnerable people, including minors, or where the arrangement is as a contractor or a volunteer. This condition also includes regular organised activities, whether for reward or otherwise. This builds upon existing obligations to obtain Ministerial approval in fields such as: Occupations that involve the use of, or access to, chemicals of security concern; Occupations in the aviation or maritime industries; and Occupations in facilities that handle security sensitive biological agents. The Government's primary objective is community protection. In order to achieve this objective, the Minister's approval will be required prior to the visa holder's engagement in occupations involving ongoing interactions with minors, such as education, child-care, or babysitting. Ministerial approval will also be required in other roles requiring a Working with Vulnerable People Check. The proposed new conditions also include: A requirement for the visa holder to notify the Government of changes in finances, including any significant transactions, debts or income. This notification requirement supports the Department to identify circumstances that could prejudice the Commonwealth's ability to resolve the visa holder's migration status, in particular, to affect removal, and to allow the Government to appropriately manage community safety considerations and the circumstances of the visa holder. The proposed new conditions also include: A requirement for the visa holder to notify the Government of changes in accommodation circumstances, including providing the details of any person residing in the visa holder's household; A requirement for the visa holder to notify the Government about any of membership or association with any club or organisation; A requirement for the visa holder to notify the Government of associations with any individual, group, entity organisation alleged, known or reported to be engaged in criminal or illegal activities; and A requirement for the visa holder to notify the Government about any interstate or overseas travel. Again, these conditions are essential for ensuring the Department of Home Affairs, and the Australian Border Force remain aware of the non-citizen's location, activities and associations, and that the visa holder remains engaged so they are available for removal as soon as removal is reasonably practicable. This Bill proposes that the breach of some of these conditions will be a criminal offence. New criminal f ences Ordinarily, a visa holder who does not comply with a condition of their visa may be considered for visa cancellation on the basis of that breach—and if cancelled, would be liable to be detained as an unlawful non-citizen. For the NZYQ-affected cohort, immigration detention is not available. As such, the prospect of visa cancellation for a breach of a visa condition is not an effective deterrent against non-compliance with reporting requirements. Establishing new offences for NZYQ-affected visa holders, sends a clear message about the importance of compliance with requirements to report to the Department of Home Affairs, and to notify of changes in circumstances. These new offences relate to: Mandatory visa reporting conditions Compliance with the curfew; and Compliance with wearing the electronic device. Each of the offences would only be enforced following due consideration of the circumstances of the case, recognising they are designed to support a proportionate response in circumstances where the non-citizen attempts to deliberately or repeatedly evade contact with, and monitoring by, the Department of Home Affairs. The aim is to reflect the seriousness of the breach of conditions. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years and equivalent penalty units to address serious and repeated cases of non-compliance Importantly, the offences also encourage compliance with conditions that help to ensure the non-citizen engages appropriately in removal processes. It is reasonable to expect that removal pending visa holders will cooperate with the authorities to facilitate their removal from Australia if and when that becomes possible. This cooperation includes refraining from activities that either threaten community safety or otherwise prejudice the Government's efforts to facilitate removal from Australia. The evidentiary burden for establishing a reasonable defence for failure to comply with the conditions will sit with the non-citizen. The standard defences available in the Criminal Code will also apply. By establishing an offence specifically for NZYQ-affected bridging visa holders, the Government is making it clear that compliance with conditions and ongoing engagement with the Department of Home Affairs is of critical importance. This includes in-person reporting and reporting by other means. It also includes notifying the Department of Home Affairs of changes in circumstances to give both the Department and the Australian Border Force continuing visibility over the visa holder's movements and circumstances. This reporting will also help to ensure the non-citizen is available as soon as the visa holder's removal from Australia becomes practicable. The importance of amendments to similar legislation It is critical that these arrangements are enacted through an amendment to the Migration Act. And it will remove any doubt that these new laws apply to both current and future NZYQ-affected cases. Pending passage and commencement of these measures, new visas will be granted to this cohort with the new conditions imposed. This will occur by operation of law. In essence, this means the original visa ceases completely and is replaced by a new visa that must be held with the mandatory conditions automatically imposed. The Government will continue to work through the implications of this High Court judgment, and the ongoing engagement of the visa holders is necessary to support this process. Additional measures These amendments are necessary as an immediate response following the High Court's decision. Further responses may be required once we have received the High Court's reasons for decision. The overarching objective is to bolster the existing framework and ensure an enduring, and appropriately robust, framework for the management of NZYQ affected non-citizens over the long-term. Closing remarks In closing, the High Court's decision has significant implications for immigration compliance and for the community protection objectives of the Government. While it is important that we enact this legislation as a priority, further safeguards are being considered. Community protection remains a fundamental priority, and the measures included in this Bill are fundamental for providing the legislative framework to support this outcome. I commend this Bill to the chamber. 12:03 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria (): If ever there was a bill that met the definition of 'a day late and a dollar short', then it's this bill. This is a bill that could and should have been introduced to the Senate last week. This is a bill which should seek to do far more than it does seek to do. The High Court handed down its decision on Wednesday of last week. It's very clear that from that moment onwards the visa conditions imposed on the now 84 criminal non-citizens released into the community were not binding—that is, those conditions that the government said were mandatory and would protect Australians from the danger posed by people who among other things have not just been accused of and charged for but in many cases been convicted of serious violent and sexual offences. These offences include murder, rape and child sex abuse. From the moment that the High Court handed down its determination on Wednesday afternoon it was clear those visa conditions were non-binding, so, when the government started to release these people into the community and assure us at the same time that they were being strictly controlled on mandatory and strict visit conditions, they knew that was not true. They knew that the only consequence for breaching any of those visa conditions was detention pending removal. They also knew that the High Court had just ruled that detention pending removal was not applicable to this cohort of non-citizens because there was no reasonable prospect that they could be removed and therefore their detention was deemed to be indefinite. From that moment the government should have done what it is seeking to do in this bill. It should have introduced criminal penalties for the breaching of visa conditions, so that at the very least the government would have some recourse if these people did not abide by the conditions that were imposed upon them. They are now belatedly doing that. But it is worse than that, colleagues. It is worse than their failure not to be ready after the High Court's ruling because in June Justice Gleeson in a preliminary hearing in this case made very clear where the court was going. She made very clear how the court was going to rule, and that was a warning in red lights to the government, 'Lookout, watch out, we are going to rule that your indefinite detention is unconstitutional.' That means there is no excuse for the government not to have been ready last week. There is no excuse for them not having had a bill in draft form that could have been quickly signed off and introduced while the Senate was meeting. It could have passed the Senate on Thursday. It could have been introduced to and passed by the House of Representatives on Monday. At least then those visa conditions would have been binding and enforceable with the power of criminal law. Instead, we have had 84 people in the community for a week unrestricted with no meaningful ability to enforce those provisions. That's why this bill is a day late—a week late, really. The reason that it's a dollar short is that, actually, what protection does it offer the Australian people? What protection does it offer them from people who have been duly tried and convicted of serious crimes, including murder, rape and child sex offences? Nothing really because during the daylight hours in the working day these people have completely unrestricted movement in the community. There is nothing to stop them from going to schools. There is nothing to stop them from going to shopping centres. There is nothing to stop them from working. There's nothing stop them from reoffending, including against those victims they originally transgressed against. There was a harrowing interview by Paul Carr that was published in the Guardian earlier this week. The interview was with a woman who was a victim of rape by a non-citizen who was jailed for that crime and then placed into indefinite detention after his sentence expired. That woman was told by police not to worry. She was told, 'He will never, ever be released into the community, so you will be safe.' As she told Paul Carr in the Guardian, when she learned last week from the police that in fact the assurances they had given her were not true, that this man had been released and was out in the community, she felt immediately fearful for her own safety and retraumatised by the crime that happened against her. She said, 'It seems like the government has no plan,' and she was right. The government didn't have a plan and still has no plan to meaningfully protect her from her rapist who is now free to move about the community, and that's putting her safety at risk. Senator Pratt I0T You're being ridiculous. Senator PATERSON 144138 I'm sure Senator Pratt is not interjecting to question the testimony of a victim to the Guardian about her rapist who is now free to get around the community. This bill could go much further, and it should go much further. There are provisions already in the high-risk terrorist offenders framework which go further and would have offered much more robust protection to Australians. They include preventative detention orders. They also include continuing detention orders, extended supervision orders and control orders. The government, despite the time it has had, despite the warning it has had from Justice Gleeson, has taken no action whatsoever to introduce such a regime. They say it's not possible to do so until the High Court hands down its ruling. Well, we're all awaiting the High Court's reasons for their ruling. We are all looking forward to reading that, but I don't think the Australian community can afford to wait until they do so. I don't think we can wait until January, February, March or whenever the court finalises its rulings and publishes them before we take action to protect Australians. The government says that, if we introduced one of those regimes right now to protect the community, it itself could be vulnerable to constitutional challenge in the High Court. That may well be true. The High Court may eventually hear a case which eventually knocks out any regime that the parliament now introduces to protect Australians. Even if the High Court does eventually do that, in the meantime the Australian community would have had the benefit of the protection of that regime. But of course it's not certain that the High Court would do that. It is not certain that the High Court would rule that out. That the government is not even willing to take that risk to protect the community reflects very badly on them. The Prime Minister's not here today. I am someone who very strongly supports the need for the Prime Minister to travel internationally in these times of heightened strategic competition. I don't take any issue with his attendance at important international fora—we need a seat at the table. But he should not have left the country until this matter was dealt with. He should have used the time he had while he was in the country to make sure that these robust protections for the community passed. He hasn't done so. That is a failure of leadership by the Prime Minister. That is an abdication of responsibility. He should not be jetting off while criminals remain free to roam the streets. I've been asked this week in the discussion about this issue, 'Why shouldn't these people who have been convicted, who have been incarcerated and who have been freed at the end of their sentences simply be free to return to the community like any Australian would be if they were convicted of an offence and completed their time in jail?' There's a very important fundamental difference, which I hope there is complete agreement about across the chamber today—perhaps not up the Greens' end of the chamber. An Australian citizen has an absolute right to be here in their country, whether they're convicted of a serious crime or not; there's nothing we can do about that. But a visitor, a guest, to this country has to meet a higher bar. The Migration Act says they have to meet the character provisions of the act. Senator PATERSON 144138 I don't think, Senator McKim, that a rapist, a murderer or a child sex abuser meets the definition of 'good character'. It is a privilege to be in this country—if you are not a citizen of this country, it is not a right. If you commit those serious crimes, I think you violate that privilege, you lose that privilege, you are not entitled to be here, and you should be able to be deported. There are some very rare special cases where it is difficult to deport people, but the Australian community cannot be satisfied that this government has done all that it could to remove that threat to this community. It has not done everything it could to ensure that these offenders do not re-offend now that they have been admitted to the community. We have seen some extremely distressing media coverage over the weekend about how this release has been handled. We remember Senator Watt assuring the chamber last week, when we asked him what would happen following the High Court case, that only the plaintiff, NZYQ, would be released into the community, and all others, including the 92 identified by the Solicitor-General in the High Court as being of risk, would not be released until the High Court handed down its reasons. Well, over the weekend, the government did exactly that. They began the process of releasing all of those offenders, now 84 in total. We read in the West Australian that dozens of them were simply dumped in a motel, free to go about whatever activities they want, party into the late hours of the evening, welcome guests to the motel in the early hours of the morning and have no meaningful restrictions imposed upon them. We heard from the immigration minister, Mr Giles, in the other place that every single one of these people when they were released into the community were released on a visa with binding conditions. We know those conditions were not binding, and we also know—courtesy of the evidence of David Mann, a lawyer for these people, that in fact they were initially released into the community without any visas at all and therefore no conditions at all, even the non-binding ones. They were only subsequently issued with visas which imposed those restrictions. This has been a catastrophic mishandling of the issue from the beginning. It was on Monday this week that we first asked Senator Wong what the consequences would be if a person released into the community breached the conditions of their visa. It wasn't answered, so we asked again on Tuesday. It wasn't answered again, so we asked again on Wednesday, and finally we secured the admission from the minister that it was in fact true that these conditions imposed on the release of these people with their visas were non-binding and that the government would remedy that finally today with legislation. When we get to the committee stage, I look forward to understanding why this legislation was not ready earlier. I look forward to understanding why the government weren't prepared in advance, given the warnings that the High Court clearly gave them months ago. Of course, the basic due diligence of any government is that, when any important national security or community safety legislation is being challenged in the High Court, particularly on a constitutional basis, there must be a backup plan. There must be a plan B. There must be a draft bill ready to go so that in the event that the government loses its case, which is always a possibility, it stands ready to remedy the consequences of that and protect the community. Senator Cash and I will move a number of amendments when we get to the committee stage, because we don't believe this bill goes far enough or sufficiently protects the community. I really hope that the chamber and the government can support those amendments. We haven't had a lot of time to consider them, but nonetheless they have been drafted. We do think they are necessary and offer additional security and protection for the community, and we do hope that the government can sincerely consider these amendments. The most sacred duty of any government is to protect the Australian people. It's our first responsibility as parliamentarians, and, for those who ever have the honour of being a minister, it is their first and most important duty. It's been very clear over the last week that the government has failed on that. They were not ready for this case, they did not act in time, and, now that they are acting, they are not acting enough. We are seeking to help them remedy that today to make sure that it is addressed more adequately and that the Australian community is protected from serious, violent noncitizen offenders now out on the streets. 12:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I indicate that I am not the minister closing the debate on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. I will just make a short contribution, but Minister Watt is handling this debate. I want to just make this point: Mr Dutton has a decision to make today. His decision is either to play politics, which is what that contribution was about, or to help the Senate and the government make our community safer. That's the decision. The first test of that, colleagues, is whether or not the opposition will provide the amendments that they are proposing. That's the first test. I note that they've been out there talking about these amendments. We want to talk to them about these amendments to see if we can work through them and ensure that we pass this legislation quickly. We still haven't seen them, and we invite you to provide those amendments. I know that the Acting Prime Minister has written to Mr Dutton. So that's the first test: are they actually going to provide them so that we can work through them together? As I said, Mr Dutton faces a choice today: is he going to work with the government to keep the community safe, or is he going to stand in the way of swift action because he wants to play more politics with this? It shouldn't be a difficult choice, should it? The government has introduced urgent legislation to strengthen these restrictions and impose criminal penalties which are needed to keep Australians safe. I note that Senator Paterson has left the chamber, and I don't criticise that—he's not required to stay—but I did note this morning a contradiction between him and Mr Tehan. Mr Tehan said the government had to get a move on to get legislation through, but Senator Paterson said we were in no rush. Well, we are committed to getting this legislation through as soon as is possible, and we invite the opposition to assist with that instead of doing what they so often do on this front, which is to play politics in an attempt to try and suggest that they're the only people who care about national security, which is untrue. They are actually prepared to delay making Australians safer as a consequence. So that's the decision the opposition have to make. I'll make one final point. We argued against the decision the High Court has made. In the chamber on Monday, when I was being critical of Mr Dutton having set up a scheme that was unconstitutional, Senator Paterson said: 'Give us a break. It's a 20-year precedent.' That's true; it is. The High Court overturned a 20-year precedent. That's the High Court's right. The government argued against it, but the High Court has decided. Those opposite have attempted to suggest that the government somehow has a choice around complying with the High Court decision. Senator Cash is a lawyer. She knows that that choice is not open to any government. She knows that. Any attempt to suggest otherwise, which has been the way in which some of this debate has proceeded in question time, is really another demonstration of their willingness to say and do anything for political purposes. But we are here today with a bill before us that will make Australians safer. I appreciate that Senator McKim is going to speak, and I'm sure he's not going to be happy with it, but this is a bill that will make Australians safe. Senator Cash, I invite you to provide us with your amendments. Work with us to get this bill through as quickly as is practicable. Don't delay it. Give us the amendments, and we will work through them with the opposition. That is the public invitation from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Acting Prime Minister to the opposition. Don't play politics. Give us the amendments. Let's get this through as quickly as we can. 12:21 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 is legislation that, according to the Minister for Home Affairs, in the House of Representatives just this morning, gives the government 'powers that no government has ever had before' in Australia. That is a direct quote from the Minister for Home Affairs in the other place this morning. This bill is so critical that it gives the government powers that it has never before had—powers that can be imposed on people who are innocent people, not because they've been convicted of a crime. These people are going to be, by definition, noncitizens. They are going to be migrants. They are going to be refugees. These are people who have already been detained, in some cases for many years, in a manner that the High Court has just found to have been unlawful. Yet here we find ourselves. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has confected an emergency, just as former prime minister John Howard did when the Tampa hove over the horizon more than two decades ago, cheerled by the Murdoch media, just as they did when the MVTampa hove over the horizon more than 20 years ago. The Labor Party has capitulated in the most abject and craven fashion, just as they did when the MV Tampa hove over the horizon 20 years ago. If there's one thing that the major parties in this place can agree on, it's that, when you need to demonise someone in this country, demonise refugees! There is a bipartisan lock step of cruelty to refugees that has run through this country for too long, and it needs to end. We have seen refugees on the MV Tampa persecuted, politicised and demonised. We've seen them persecuted on Manus Island. We've seen them persecuted, dehumanised and demonised on Nauru. And we're seeing it again today. Make no mistake: this is Prime Minister Albanese's Tampa moment, and history will condemn him for this, just as it condemned Mr Howard and Mr Beazley over 20 years ago. These are draconian laws that will provide the minister, according to the Minister for Home Affairs, with powers never before seen in Australia. These laws allow for visa conditions to be opposed, which is detention by another name: curfews—effectively house arrest—and electronic surveillance or, as it's more commonly known, electronic detention. In order to try to get around the High Court, to try to subvert the highest court in this country, the Labour Party is bringing in legislation—which I have no doubt at all will be supported by the Liberals—that will provide for detention by another name and will also, for the first time, criminalise any breach of bail conditions, and that offence will be punishable by a jail term of up to five years. So, mark my words, they are going to set people up to fail by putting in place punitive conditions that are almost impossible to comply with. And when they've set them up to fail and people inevitably fail—through carelessness or through not paying due attention to where they find themselves or to the fine print of reporting conditions or any other conditions—they will be charged, and then they will potentially be imprisoned by the courts. And the government is doing all this in less than a day. Here we are, debating under a gag motion agreed to by the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics—the political duopoly, operating in zombie lock step—to once again punish vulnerable refugees, because it's in their political interests to do so. This legislation creates a two-tiered justice system in this country where some migrants and refugees will be subject to measures that Australian citizens will not and cannot be subject to. This will divide our country and set one group of people inside Australia against another. Labor is a party that once prided itself on championing human rights and justice, and it's now marching to the tune of opposition leader Peter Dutton, a man who has built a political career on trampling human rights and demonising refugees. It is an utter disgrace—an abject, craven capitulation by a party that has forgotten where it comes from and forgotten what it used to stand for. Labor's decision to fast-track this legislation has been made for one reason and one reason only. It is because they have cravenly collapsed under the political pressure applied by Mr Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, amplified and magnified by his friends and cheerleaders in the Murdoch media. We've heard a lot about community safety during this debate, but let's be really clear about the big threat to community safety: allowing politicians to arbitrarily impose punishment on people. That is the big threat to community safety, because that takes us a number of steps down the pathway towards tyranny. Historically, countries that are now considered to be Western democracies have come from tyrannical regimes. The monarchy in England was a tyrannical regime, and a revolution was fought to establish parliaments. Yet here we are in a parliament, taking steps back down the road to tyranny. This is a disgraceful display of political opportunism by Mr Dutton and a craven capitulation by the Australian Labor Party. To make it worse, Labor's leader in the House, Mr Burke, this morning confirmed that there is 'absolutely a possibility of further legislation after the High Court delivers its reasons'. This brings me to the next obvious point. We are ramming this through, and it will pass today. I predict only the Greens will oppose it. It will pass today. It is a response to a High Court decision that we have not yet seen the reasons for. This parliament is shadow-boxing with the High Court. We don't even know what the actual scope of the High Court decision is. We don't know what its reasons are. We don't know who's going to be caught by that decision. But let's blindly stagger on, eh? Government and opposition, let's blindly stagger on because, when we don't know what to do, we're just going to collude to demonise refugees. It is a pattern we have seen repeated time after time after time in this place. I want to speak a little bit to the detail of this legislation. We, the Greens, have concerns about issues such as necessity, proportionality and the limited judicial appeal rights that are granted to people under this legislation. Curfews have traditionally only been used for serious criminal offenders or where there is a flight risk. But I want people to understand—because you wouldn't know this from the serial mistruths that have been propagated in this debate by the Leader of the Opposition and his cohort in this chamber—that not all of the people caught by the High Court decision have been convicted of a crime. There are a significant number who have not, yet this legislation provides for the minister to arbitrarily impose visa conditions, including curfew and electronic detention, on people who have never been convicted of a crime. Yet all we're getting is cheerleading from everyone else in this place except for the Greens. I note the only people to oppose this legislation in the lower house were the Australian Greens. Mr Wilkie supported it. A number of the MPs known as the teals supported this legislation—a disgraceful capitulation by those folks as well as by the Labor Party. This legislation creates a class of people who are judged not by their actions but by their visa status. The debate around this matter has exposed the extent to which the media ecosystem in this parliament and this country is utterly broken. The media, with a small number of honourable exceptions, have swallowed Mr Dutton's framing hook, line and sinker on this. That includes a number of journalists in outlets that should know better. I expect that rubbish from the Murdoch media, but I don't expect it from organisations who should know better. But that's what we've been served up in this debate. The overwhelming majority of the media in this building and in this country need to take a good, long look at themselves in the mirror over the way they have reported this issue. I also want to make the point that, if a noncitizen wants to contend that they have a reasonable excuse for a breach of a visa condition, the burden of evidentiary proof will be on them. They have to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for a breach. That is contrary to natural justice and the norms around where the burden of proof is generally allocated in Australian law. Let me remind the Senate that those who will be caught by this legislation who had in the past committed crimes—and that is by no means all of the people that will be caught—have already served their time. This is double punishment. This is double jeopardy and double punishment. What I say in terms of the legality of this legislation is: stand by for another return to the High Court. I've got no doubt the Labor government has got advice from the Solicitor-General that this is all fine and it's all in accordance with the Constitution, but that's what they said last time, and they got turfed out by the High Court just last week. There will be a High Court challenge to these powers when the appropriate case arises; mark my words. Senator Hanson-Young I0U What does the Attorney-General think? Senator McKIM JKM As Senator Hanson-Young has just raised, it would be very interesting to hear the actual opinion of the Attorney-General, the first law officer of this land, on this legislation. I'd be very interested to know what Mr Dreyfus really thought about this legislation. I've seen some rubbish come through parliaments in my two decades as an MP. This one is right up there with the worst, foulest, most disgusting legislative rubbish I have seen in my two decades in the parliament. The Australian Greens will proudly oppose this bill. 12:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. Let's just put into perspective what the Senate is currently looking at today. I want to quote from the editor-in-chief of the West Australian newspaper in his opinion piece today. Murderers, child rapists, contract killers and DV thugs. Listening to the contribution of others in the chamber, you might think we were talking about innocent lambs, but let us be very clear: we are not. These are people who have been convicted of raping young children. In fact, the plaintiff in this case, let's be very clear for anyone who is having any doubt, was convicted of raping a 10-year-old boy. That is a despicable, disgusting crime, quite frankly, goes without saying, and anyone who would stand in this chamber and argue that those people have rights, I think, should hang their heads in shame. These are people who have committed murder. These are people who have committed serious domestic violence offences. These are people who are of the worst character this country has ever seen. On top of that, let us not forget these people are non-citizens of Australia. In other words, they actually have no right to be in this country. Child rapists, murderers, DV thugs and contract killers—so let's put this debate into perspective. There are some of us in this chamber—and I am proud to be proud of the former coalition government and, indeed, the coalition in general, which has always believed and, if we are given the privilege of governing again, let me make it very clear: we will continue to ensure that the fundamental responsibility of the federal government of Australia is the protection of Australia and Australians. And let me be very, very clear that we will never wavier in our commitment to put the Australian people and their security and their defence first. Quite frankly, the shambles that we have seen with this government over the last week clearly show that the Albanese government does not share this basic belief. The way that this legislation has been brought to this chamber demonstrates their inability to execute what is a basic but fundamental responsibility of a federal government and demonstrates their inability to govern Australia. Quite frankly, you have to question whether or not Mr Albanese as the Prime Minister is actually fit for office. The government would like to tell you they've acted responsibly. The government would like to tell you that they have done everything they can to protect Australia and Australians. Well, that is just wrong, and it is wrong based on the facts of this particular case. Any government that took seriously the protection of Australia and Australians would have listened when, in June of this year, the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the land, through Justice Gleeson, gave a clear indication to the minister for immigration and to the government that it was on shaky ground. The government as of June of this year should have been prepared for this case. I can tell you right now, if Peter Dutton was the Prime Minister of this country, he would have ensured that his government was prepared. He wouldn't have just released 84 detainees out onto the street without actually having an appropriate response. But this government throws its hands up and says: 'Well, we didn't know. We weren't prepared, but we've been scrambling to prepare ever since.' Well, guess what? That is not borne out by the facts. What is also not borne out by the facts are the comments that the coalition has not been prepared to work with the government. If I recall correctly, it is Peter Dutton, as the Leader of the Opposition and the alternative Prime Minister in this country, who has actually been the person out there every day saying the government needs to bring on legislation to clean up what is now a mess—not the government; it is Peter Dutton who has been out there every day saying that. So we end up here today, and guess what? Senator Wong came in and accused us of playing politics. Well, Senator Wong, we asked for the bill and the explanatory memorandum to be presented to us last night. Senator James Paterson, Mr Dan Tehan, Mr Peter Dutton and myself would have sat here till midnight or three am; we wouldn't have gone to bed so that we could properly analyse your legislation and make sure the legislation that you are bringing forward is fit for purpose. But guess what? The government didn't give us that courtesy. Instead, we were told that we could have a briefing at 7.15 this morning, and that was the first time that the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for immigration, the shadow minister for home affair and myself were shown the legislation. A quick glance in that briefing showed me the legislation is fundamentally flawed. The legislation itself is not fit for purpose. Why do I say that? Because clearly you scrambled to draft it. Really, you're obviously too scared to put in place the measures that will appropriately protect the Australian people. The legislation, as Peter Dutton has said in the other place this morning, is completely inadequate. And, frankly, it looks like it was literally thrown together at the last minute. Senator Scarr 282997 Because it was! Senator CASH I0M Because it was. That's exactly right, Senator Scarr—because it was. Senator Wong said the opposition is being disingenuous in that—she is the Acting Prime Minister because the Prime Minister is not here, despite Mr Dutton's call yesterday for him not to get on a plane but to stay in Australia and deal with the mess that this country is confronted with. If you did believe that the fundamental responsibility of your Commonwealth government is the safety and security of the nation and its people, you would have done that. Mr Dutton has said we are here to work with you. The parliament should not rise until this is dealt with. Mr Albanese, though, had other ideas. The front page of the West Australian newspaper today really says it all: 'Fight or flight.' That is not me; that is the West Australian newspaper—fight or flight. There is a picture of Mr Albanese getting on the plane, and clearly he has chosen flight. That is not to say that the duties that he had overseas are not important, but the option was certainly given to them that the parliament could sit until the matter was dealt with. Mr Albanese chose a different course of action. The quick glance that the Leader of the Opposition, Senator James Paterson, Mr Tehan and I had has revealed to us that the legislation is inadequate. We have been drafting amendments this morning. I note that in the other place, interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition was denied the opportunity to move these amendments. I say shame on the government for not allowing the Leader of the Opposition—he has been the Minister for Defence and also for many, many years held the portfolio of Minister for Home Affairs—to do that. I would have thought the government would welcome the constructive contribution from a person who for nine years sat around the cabinet table, who also sat around the table of the National Security Committee of cabinet and, not only that, who clearly understands this portfolio better than both Mr Giles and Ms O'Neill. But no, that input was not welcomed by the government. Instead, they rushed the legislation through the House. Therefore, yes, we will be moving amendments in the Senate later on this evening and we will be discussing those amendments with the government. But I want to make it very clear, given Senator Wong's comments, that when you do not do us the courtesy of providing us with legislation the night before, even though it was clearly there to go, and when you present to us that legislation only at 7.15 in the morning, saying to us, 'We expect this to be passed later on this morning,' you probably will not be surprised that, when we realise at first glance that the legislation you are bringing before parliament is deficient, the coalition will say to you, 'We will draft amendments to ensure, to the extent that we can, that the legislation, this weak bill is fit for purpose.' I would have thought you'd actually say thank you, because we're helping you clean up a mess. We want you to get this right because we do take seriously the responsibility of a federal government when it comes to defending Australians and to ensuring their security. We are a former federal government that has a track record that clearly shows we are prepared to take action. We are a federal opposition that, if we had been in government and we had been given the clear indication by the High Court of Australia in June of this year, would have had options available the minute the decision came down. Instead, we have seen from this government every possible excuse that you could think of to throw at the Australian people. Where do we end up? We have now ended up with someone who has been convicted of raping a 10-year-old boy being out on the streets. If you'd read the West Australian yesterday, you would have seen that in my home state, despite everything the government said about putting conditions on their visas, of the 32 released detainees, seven of them—made up of convicted rapists, domestic violence offenders and murderers—were dumped at a motel in Thornlie. From all accounts by a journalist who decided to spend the night there himself, there weren't too many of these conditions. This is despite the government standing up and telling the people of Australia that they take the matter seriously and they have their back. I have to wonder: does Mr Albanese actually have the back of Australians? I really do wonder because you can't come up with a solution overnight in relation to convicted child rapists, murderers, contract killers and DV thugs who are not entitled to be in this country. They are not entitled to be here because they are non-citizens. If you can't come up with a solution to put the safety and security of the Australian people first then, quite frankly, you are not fit to govern this country. 12:51 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to speak to the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, and I have to say I agree with everything that Senator Cash has just said in this chamber. Since this happened last week, my office has been inundated with phone calls, emails and letters from the general public stating their concerns with regard to these people and how this situation came to happen. Senator McKim stood up and said: 'But these are innocent people. They are refugees.' They are not refugees. These are people that are in the country illegally. They are not Australian citizens. They have been here for years. Do you know why? They have destroyed their identification documents. We don't even know who a lot of them are because they came to this country having destroyed their identification documents. If you were truly a refugee and in fear for your life, you would have no problem explaining to the authorities who you are and why you are here. A lot of them are economic refugees, and we know that some have passed through many other countries to get here. They paid people smugglers to get here, and we now find that these people are nothing but criminals like paedophiles. Senator Pratt is humming and hawing over there about what I'm saying. Are you denying it? Through the chair, has Senator Pratt anything to say on why she does not believe that they are criminals? That's been reported, and it is quite well know that they are criminals. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. I want to remind the chamber that we need to make sure that we are not impugning other people in the chamber or their motivations and that all comments are directed through the chair. Senator HANSON BK6 The fact is that how this situation has been dealt with is absolutely disgusting. The bill has been rushed in. Senator Cash said that the opposition got the bill last night. I only got it in my hands about five minutes before I walked into this chamber. We have had no chance to really have a look at this bill. As I was saying, the public are furious about this. It's been on talkback radio, and the public are incensed. It is about national security. I am ropeable about the fact that these people have been released. As Senator Cash said, the government knew what was going to happen, and they did nothing to prepare. It's typical of this government. As I've said on numerous occasions, it's the worst government to rule this country that I have seen in my seven years in this chamber and another nearly three years in the other place. It's absolutely the worst government. You are unprepared, and you don't know what you are doing. The legislation put through this place is pathetic to say the least. When you put it up, you make so many amendments to it. You don't even know what you are doing, you don't have a plan for anything and you don't have a plan for this at all. On such an important issue as this, especially as we are hearing from the public, you would think that you would work closely with the opposition to find the right answers to deal with this—for national security and for the future of this nation. But you are so bloody-minded that you're not interested in that. You only handed it to the opposition last night and, even today, you want to block debate on this. You want to have only an hour's debate on this, an hour and a half at the most. You want to shut it down, on such an important issue as this, and you're supposed to be governing this country. These are not innocent people. That's why the Australian people are up in arms about this. As we've said a number of times, there are crimes that they have committed. One of these men is from Kuala Lumpur. He attacked a pregnant woman and then blew her up. That's the type of person we've allowed on our streets. They're not Australian citizens. If they're refugees, just ordinary law-abiding refugees, why haven't they been given citizenship? Because they're not of good character. That is the thing: they are not of good character. We don't want them here, but because we can't seem to get it together right—these people should have been deported. But I know for a fact that a lot of countries won't take them back. You thought it was all boat people who were coming out here. We had 50,000 boat people. Of course, the Greens wanted to open the floodgates and allow all these refugees into the country: 'We should allow them in. We should look after them. These people have a right to come here. It's not about protecting our borders and knowing who we allow in the country. Just let these people flood into the country.' But a lot of these people actually come in on planes. They fly into the country and they destroy their identification. And we can't send them back to a lot of the countries they come from because those countries want to know who they are. That's why they destroy their identification—because they don't want to be sent back. They're economic refugees. They come here for a reason. And they know that we are so soft that we can't get rid of them. That's why they've been in detention for a long time. There was the member of the lower house who said we should bring them from these detention centres into Australia for medevac reasons. They actually swallowed stones. They poured boiling water over their kids. They did these hideous crimes to themselves and to their families purely to get into Australia so that they couldn't be deported. These are people we've allowed into Australia. They're not innocent. They're not innocent people at all. These people who were released and are now in our community have been housed and put up in hotel accommodation. We can't do that for our own Australians who are sleeping on the streets, living in tents, and yet we're doing it for these people. I'd like to put it to the Greens, especially Senator McKim: Are you going to open up your house to them? How many are you going to invite into your home? How many are you going to look after? How many of the Greens will do that? I think you should stand on principle and I think you should house them. If you think they're so willing to be here and you feel safe with them in your home, open up your home and pay their bills—not the Australian taxpayer, because now they actually have the right to, and we're paying for, their welfare. I think the public have a right to know who they are and where they're going. You say there are conditions under this legislation. Senator McKim says the conditions we're going to put on them are so restrictive. I'll just read out a few of them: The holder must report at the time or times; and at a place or in a manner; specified orally or in writing by the Minister from time to time. I don't think that's unreasonable. This is another: If the holder is directed orally or in writing, by the Minister to attend, at a specified place, on a specified day and at a specified time, an interview that relates to the holder's visa— I don't think that's a hard one. Notify the department of the full name, and date of birth, of each person who ordinarily resides with the holder at the holder's residential address Is that difficult? I don't think so. must obtain the Minister's approval before commencing to perform work, or a regular organised activity, involving more than incidental contact with a minor or any other vulnerable person I think that's feasible. must notify the Department of the details of any contact with the following: (a) any individual, group or organisation that is alleged, or is known by the holder, to be engaging in criminal or other illegal activities; (b) any individual, group or organisation that has previously engaged in, or has expressed an intention to engage in, criminal or other illegal activities. This is where Senator McKim thinks this is just setting them all up for failure—this is not being responsible and reporting to the Australian government or the department. Here's another one: must notify Department of the following matters: (a) the holder receives, within any period of 30 days, an amount or amounts totalling AUD10 000 or more from one or more other persons; (b) the holder transfers, within any period of 30 days, an amount or amounts totalling AUD10 000 or more to one or more other persons; (c) the holder's banking arrangements change … If the holder incurs a debt or debts totalling AUD10 000 or more That's the financial circumstances. That's not setting them up. There is nothing in this bill that is actually detrimental to them being caught out, so that is an absolutely ridiculous statement from Senator McKim. We have the High Court's decision about how you can't hold them indefinitely. I put to the opposition that we should possibly look at an amendment to this to put a time frame on it—that you can't hold them any more than, say, 25 or 30 years. If you put a time frame on it and if that were amended and put through, then these people could actually be rounded up again and put into the detention centres. The court's decision has already been made. They have been released. And then, if they end up in detention centres, there is a time frame there—it's not indefinite detention. Maybe if these people knew that then they might come forward with who they are, with identification. Those are thugs and criminals that I don't want in this country. Once someone said: 'You could be sending them back to their deaths. With all of the crimes committed, if they went back to their own countries, they would give them the death sentence.' You know what? I don't care. They can go back to their own countries. And a lot of Australians will feel exactly the same way. What's going to happen if you've got that type of person in Australia is that a lot of them don't change, and I will grieve any Australian that may lose their life because of these animals that we have released in our community. I will call them that, because that's how I feel they are, especially a man who rapes a 10-year-old boy or a man who murders and then blows up a woman. They are disgusting animals. This is what the Greens want to keep in the country—these types of people. Like I said, we have over the years had a very well organised and managed refugee program. We do take refugees in this country. I have many refugees from Vietnam and from other countries around the world who come up to me and say they were given such a privilege to come to Australia, who appreciate the opportunity they were given to become Australian citizens. That's wonderful to hear. We do give people these opportunities, especially from countries like Vietnam, with what happened to the people over there, and other countries whose people we've allowed into Australia. But there comes a point when you've got to make sure of who you allow into the country: that they are going to be good citizens, of good character, and that they will be proud to abide by our laws, our culture and our way of life. That's what it means to be a good Australian citizen. We have now breached our national security, as far as I'm concerned. As I said, the Labor Party is at an absolute loss, with another one of the bills they've put before this parliament. They have no idea at all how to deal with this. I think it's absolutely disgusting that our Prime Minister is out of the country at this time on yet another visit. He was just in the United States, what, a week or two ago? He's on another visit to the United States. He's not in the country, again. He's constantly out of the country. This is one of the most important issues that we are facing now. It's concerning many Australians. I remember the Labor Party and the left-leaning media having the audacity to have a go at Scott Morrison, who was on holidays in Hawaii, because he wasn't here to hold a hose for the bushfires—is that what it was about? We need the Prime Minister here in this country to deal with an important issue with important legislation around criminals being released on our streets. I don't hear anything from the left-leaning media—nothing whatsoever. You're quite happy to have a go at the coalition whenever you can, but you constantly let the Labor Party off time and time again. You do not hold them to the same account as you did with the coalition when they were in government. That's what the issue is about: that the media don't hold the Labor Party to account. Everyone should be held to account in this place, but you let them slide through. You don't hold them to account. It's the same thing with this piece of legislation. I wish that you would get your act together, work with the opposition with regard to this and make sure that we protect our national security and protect the safety of the Australian people. That's what they want. They want assurances from the leaders of this nation that they are being considered and looked after. I will say it again: look after the Australian people first and foremost before allowing the bleeding hearts in this chamber and outside to worry about everyone else. 13:06 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The Australian people are a very generous bunch of people. We have overseen one of the largest migration programs that any country has seen since the Second World War. We have been able to take in people from all across the globe. That's been possible because, whilst governments have run proper migration programs, they've also been prepared to protect the citizenry and to protect the existing Australian people as part of that process. The confidence that the Australian people have in the migration program is a very important thing. We have been a very successful and harmonious multicultural society—perhaps the most successful. The confidence that the community has that the government of the day is able to protect the Australian people is critical to maintaining that confidence that we want to see. We want to be a country which is open for business, and we want to be a country that is able to accept genuine refugees, as we have over the last 75 years in particular. That is what is so disappointing about the way that the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 has been managed. I've spent a lot of my contributions in this chamber talking about the economic mismanagement of this government. But this is another very disappointing failure in that it is maladministration writ large that you could know about something that was a possible risk to the community for more than six months. The government was on notice that it was possible that the High Court would say, 'That law is not valid, and therefore the people that have been held in detention will be released into the community, including people who have been convicted of very serious crimes.' Maintaining confidence is one thing, but it is also important that we don't have a situation where there are loopholes in our successful border protection regime. When I talk about border protection, I'm talking about a policy suite that sits alongside a successful migration program. These two things are interlinked. Setting aside the risk about community confidence and community safety, there is a very large risk here that there could be a situation where a very large loophole could be opened up where stateless people could be artificially constructed and thereby use this loophole, which has been opened up by the law being struck down, which the government knew was a risk. The government knew about this for six months. That is something that we now need to consider and fix, because we cannot have holes in our border protection regime. If there are holes, they will be exploited by criminals, people smugglers and the like. And if there is a way for people to destroy their identification and to become stateless in some form, that cannot be a back door into our migration program, because Australia is a great country, it is a harmonious country, and there are millions of people around the world who would like to come here. But that needs to be done on a legal and orderly basis. One thing everyone in the coalition agrees with is that we need to manage our borders in accordance with our rules and our values, and we do that in conjunction with a generous humanitarian program and other migration programs. This was not an unforeseeable risk. Six months ago the government was put on notice that this was going to be a potential problem, and last week the High Court found that the law was to be struck down. In the last week we've seen a process where 83 or 84 people have been released into the community—murderers, rapists and other criminals, released into the community—and that number could swell to 340. We could see 340 criminals released onto Australia's streets with no measure—and this is a key point—that that can be deployed to detain these people. There's no lawful way of detaining one of these people, because of the High Court's judgement. Right now, as it stands, we have a lawless position. And the 83 or 84 people—it could become 340—can effectively do what they like, and there is no capacity to re-detain these people. That is an unacceptable risk in a free society that believes in the rule of law and believes in orderly migration. The Australian people would expect better from their government. The Australian people would think, okay, the government was put on notice six months ago that there was a problem with the law that may lead to the release of murderers and rapists. The Australian people are reasonable people, and they would have expected that the government would have a contingency plan in case the High Court did strike down the law—that on that afternoon or the next day the minister in the government would walk into the parliament and table the legislation that fixes the loophole and protects the citizens of Australia and gives the law enforcement authorities some capacity to detain people and protect the community. At the moment, unfortunately, our law enforcement agencies are not equipped with any legal power or jurisdiction to do anything in relation to this group of people. The government have, belatedly, introduced a bill into this parliament that puts very rudimentary, very basic obligations that would apply to these people. One of them is an obligation to disclose if a club membership has been taken out. That is not a particularly onerous duty that is to be imposed onto these people. And there are a bunch of other very simple obligations. I regret to report to the Senate, as the other coalition members and senators have stated today, that, at just 17 pages, the bill needs to be amended to ensure that it meets the standard that the community would expect. The community would expect that there would be mandatory monitoring of criminals, that there would be mandatory monitoring of murderers and rapists who are in our community now, who have been released through a quirk in the law. It is hugely regrettable that the government have gone soft here in terms of the visa conditions that are to apply under the government's legislation. A 17-page bill is not a very large bill in the scheme of the work that this parliament does, and it is very troubling that this bill has taken almost a week to develop. As I said, it is a very weak bill. That's why our amendments to impose mandatory sentences for serious breaches of visa conditions and to put in place mandatory electronic surveillance, monitoring and curfews are an entirely reasonable proposition, because that is what the community expects. The community would not expect there to be hardened criminals walking around the streets just because they have been subject to a quirk or loophole in the legal system. There's no situation in this country where an Australian citizen would expect to be sitting on a train next to a murderer or a rapist just because there was a loophole. They would expect that a murderer or a rapist would be serving a custodial sentence. That is the standard that the Australian people expect. In my opinion, this will affect the confidence that the Australian people may have in the long-running and very successful migration program, because if the Australian people feel that the government is incapable of protecting their interests and their families then there will be a loss of confidence in the system. The other speakers have already catalogued the revolting cases that have been applied here in terms of some of the crimes that have been committed. I won't seek to detain us any longer, but it is hugely regrettable that it has taken the government so long to do this. I have to say it reminds me a lot of the last time that Labor was the government of Australia. They were very poor when it came to economic management, and, in relation to the management of the migration system, I have to say that the last Labor government lost the confidence of the Australian people on issues like this. So this is a key test for the government. Will they be prepared to entertain some of the very reasonable suggestions that we make in our amendments? It's just not good enough that Australian people should be exposed to murderers and rapists in their day-to-day lives. The bill should be strengthened, and I urge the Senate to take this course of action. 13:17 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. I want to compliment my colleague Senator Bragg for his very fine summation of the issues involved. In particular, he went to an area that I think needs exploration and consideration in this place, which is the potential massive loophole, as Senator Bragg described it. It is a huge moral hazard that the legislature—this place and the other place—now faces following the High Court's decision. There is now an active incentive in the system for people to appear to engineer a stateless situation to achieve an outcome. If you followed the Greens' prescription—and, quite frankly, seemingly the Labor Party's prescription until 24 hours ago—you would have effectively had almost no control as a country on those people entering society. Whilst those opposite may disagree with that, I'm going to go to an article published in the West Australian. A journalist, Caleb Runciman, spent a night at a Thornlie motel. He went to the motel after the decision to release inmates from Yongah Hill—inmates that were supposedly, according to the Labor government, going to be closely monitored. He decided to check into that motel and see what would happen. Far from it being closely monitored, he found absolutely no monitoring at all. There were around 30 detainees staying at the motel. Twelve, after a night's sleep at the motel, were taken to the airport, where they jumped on planes to the eastern states. How much knowledge, control and scrutiny of those movements was there? We don't know. On the night they were released, four actually sourced a car before hitching a ride away from the motel in the middle of the night. Is that being 'closely monitored'—sourcing a car and hitching a ride away from the motel in the middle of the night? According to this journalist, again, the gates to the motel were constantly unlocked during the night and, in his words, the property became 'a hive of visitor activity late into the night'. This is extraordinary. This is extraordinary in this country. Remember—for those listening—the government had had a six-month warning that this judgement from the High Court was a possibility. Later in the article—it's a long article, and I urge all those listening to go and read it—the journalist says that when he arrived at the hotel there were no staff or security present, none. There were just the detainees and perhaps some other guests. Senator Scarr 282997 Lucky them! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Very lucky them! I wonder if they were informed about what was going on, Senator Scarr. So there were just the detainees and possibly other guests. Again, the next day they were driven to the airport, where they flew to the eastern states. That was under what security, what surveillance, what requirements for ensuring the safety of the Australian people? We really have no idea. Let's go through the time line. The government was given warning that this decision could be made many, many months ago and did absolutely nothing. The High Court handed down its decision last Wednesday. My good friend Senator James Paterson, the shadow minister for home affairs, on Thursday, immediately after the decision was handed down, called for a legislated response. What did we hear from the government? Absolutely nothing. They had to wait for the High Court to deliver its full judgement in an indeterminate amount of time into the future, possibly months. Senator Watt in fact said, 'We're not a government that acts on decisions that haven't had reasons released.' So, according to Senator Watt, the government's immediate response was going to be to sit on its hands for the months, or at least many weeks—possibly months—it was going to take for the full judgement to be released by the High Court. Senator Scarr 282997 They'd still be doing nothing. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 They'd still be doing nothing today. They'd be doing nothing in a week, they'd be doing nothing in three weeks, they'd be doing nothing in a month. That was the government's plan. It's on the record, and nobody opposite can deny it. When this issue first arose, as I said, on Wednesday last week, the shadow minister for home affairs, Senator Paterson, immediately called for a legislated response. On Thursday, the government told us that the individual in the High Court decision had been released, but, when asked about the potential release of other individuals in the cohort, Senator Watt said, 'We're not a government that acts on decisions that haven't had reasons released.' But, in fact, we found out on Friday that they had been acting in the sense that large numbers of high-risk individuals were being released. So they weren't going to make any response until they had the full decision from the High Court, but they were releasing the detainees. On Monday Minister Giles told us that 80 individuals had been released subject to a range of strict mandatory visa conditions, yet yesterday Senator Wong admitted that the consequences of breaching these new visa conditions were ultimately unenforceable because breaching a visa requires that an individual be detained pending deportation, which the High Court ruled is not applicable for this cohort of people. So, when they were released, many of them, I understand, were released with no visas at all. They were just released—open the door, off you go. Now, if you haven't got a visa, you can't have any visa conditions, so you can't have any consequences for breaching visa conditions. That will be remedied, hopefully, in this bill—and, as everyone knows, we've only received the bill this morning, and we are still looking at a series of amendments. To again remind those listening: this is not merely a cohort of asylum seekers, as some on the other side like to pretend. These are people who have been involved in serious crime or serious activities of violence. As Senator Cash talked about, in this cohort are contract killers, child rapists, murderers, people who have conducted terrorist-like acts and people who have been engaged in the most egregious cases of domestic violence. Again I point out that those on this side, immediately the court handed down its decision, called for a legislated response, because that is what we are here for. Now, there is a separation of powers. There is a role for an independent court system, and obviously we all respect the role and the rulings of the High Court. But we are also legislators. We are here to deal with situations like this and deal with them in a way that is timely and upholds our first responsibility as senators, as members of parliament: to protect the Australian people. That is why we are here. The fact that this moral hazard, this loophole, has been created in our visa system and our processing of people coming from overseas does require and effective response. The government failed the first test immediately. They were planning to sit on their hands for months until the full decision was handed down by the High Court—unacceptable for any government to take that sort of response. And now, finally, dragged kicking and screaming, they have brought forward legislation, again keeping parliamentarians in the dark for as long as possible. As Senator Cash said, she would have been here last night—she would have been here all night—if that's what it would have taken to see the bill earlier. But, no, it was this morning—handed a copy of the bill at 7.15 am. Of course we will support the bill, but we will also look to strengthen the bill, because it simply isn't strong enough. There are some obvious improvements that can be made that we will be moving. But, as I said, we will ultimately support the legislation. We sincerely hope that the government is serious, as Senator Wong said, about— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Order! It being 1.30, the Senate will now move to senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 49 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Housing and Homelessness 49 13:30 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to speak today to call on the state and federal Labor governments to get their act together and get the Pinkenba facility—what was an immigration facility but is now a detention facility—approved to house up to 500 people. There's a facility sitting there. The Queensland Labor government wrote to the federal Labor government back on 9 August about getting it made fit for purpose to house 500 people, but nothing has been done. We're in a housing crisis, and we have got a massive rate of immigration of 600,000 people. That is the rate at which people are coming into this country. It is simply not good enough for the Labor government to be sitting on their hands while this facility goes unused. I'd also like to mention the fact that Brisbane is quickly becoming a tent city because of the homelessness brought about by Labor's reckless immigration policy. Throughout COVID, you couldn't get the Labor Party to build these facilities fast enough. They were more than happy to criticise the Morrison government at the time for not building these facilities, and they were more than happy to lock up anyone that was unvaccinated or had COVID. Yet now, when it comes to actually helping out homeless people and getting them into these facilities, the Labor governments have stalled. They have stalled, and it is just another example of how the Labor governments are interested in power and control rather than in trying to serve the people. I call on the state and federal Labor governments to get busy, get the Pinkenba facility up and running and house 500 homeless people. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 50 13:31 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise in the Senate and share a special entrance speech from Raise Our Voice in Parliament, Tully Connor from Queensland. Tully had this speech prepared and wanted me to read it out today. She says: My name is Tully Connor and I am 15 years old, currently residing in the electorate of Ryan, Brisbane/Meanjin. Previously, I lived in Gladstone, Queensland, where a lack of extracurricular activities (excluding sport, which I am unable to participate in due to health issues.) left me feeling isolated and often powerless. The voices of regional youth often go unheard, with limited opportunities beyond sports. Thankfully, my move to Brisbane has opened doors to exciting activities like Model UN and advocacy work, transforming my mental well-being and enhancing my resume. It's unfair and unjust that rural youth miss out on such opportunities, creating isolation and possibly limiting their future prospects. Regional voices deserve to be heard, and equal access to extracurricular activities can bridge this gap. For Australia to become a truly equitable and just society, we must ensure that all youth, regardless of their geographical location, have an equal starting point. Currently, children in major cities have an obvious advantage, which is which integrally unfair. It's essential that we allocate funding for regional towns to establish extracurricular humanities opportunities for young people. By doing so, we can level the playing field and provide access to the same enriching experiences available to their urban counterparts. This investment not only promotes fairness but also harnesses the untapped potential of regional youth, creating a brighter and more equitable future for all Australians. I say thank you to Tully. It was wonderful to speak to you yesterday, and congratulations on your speech. You remind me a lot of myself when I was your age, and one day we might have a Senator Connor from Queensland. Climate Change 50 13:34 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland This week, the Labor government and the coalition teamed up to rush through the sea dumping bill purely for the benefit of Santos, Woodside and INPEX, in the face of all the evidence of global boiling, rising catastrophes and destruction. The Labor government has a clear message to the young people of Australia: 'Your future doesn't matter.' They are actively opening up coal and gas, which we know will accelerate global boiling. There are very good reasons why students around this country are standing up to yell and shout that their futures matter and that the ability for them to live and thrive on a safe planet matters. What did Labor do? The Prime Minister and the education minister laughed in their faces. Kids are worried about the future. They know that Labor's plan for more coal and gas will make global boiling worse. While the Prime Minister and the frontbench laughed, the education minister mocked the idea that students should exercise their democratic right to protest and said he wanted them at school. We've grown used to Labor's cowardice in the face of the climate crisis, but telling kids that they should just shut up while the government continue to open up new coal and gas shows how hopelessly captured and out of touch the government are. If the government is going to ignore calls from young people to act on climate then young people should ignore the education minister and take to the streets on Friday. School Strike 4 Climate is this Friday. No new coal and gas! Youth Voice in Parliament Week 50 13:36 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to give a speech, as many of my colleagues have done this week, as part of the Youth Voice in Parliament Week Raise Our Voice campaign. I've been fortunate enough to help amplify the voice of a young man called Patrick Jones. This is Patrick's speech: Hello to all listening. My name is Patrick Jones, and I'm a fourteen-year-old from the electorate of Richmond. Something that I have become painfully aware of in the last year is the undeniable influence of misogyny in our society—it manifests itself as sexist humour and attitudes; harassment at work or on the street; and as crimes of violence against women. Only when my eyes were opened to the realities of how women are treated in "developed" countries did I become at all aware of the magnitude of these issues. This being said, I call on the government to take immediate and significant action to combat the epidemic of misogyny and violence that is killing our society and poisoning our youth, the latter being under the constant influence of people like Andrew Tate, now under investigation for rape and sex trafficking. When 23 per cent of men believe it's ok to use misogynistic language online, it's time for change. When 90 per cent of rape cases go unreported for fear of victim-blaming, it's time for change. And when a woman is killed by her partner every 10 days, it's time for change. All of these are true—so why aren't we changing? Well done, Patrick. It is so heartening to see this recognition of a serious issue. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 51 13:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This week is Raise our Voice in Parliament week, and I rise to amplify the voice of a young person in my home state of New South Wales named My Nguyen. My says this: Greetings … I'm My Nguyen, an 11-year-old student eager to drive change. Today, I'll address a critical issue that can shape our future positively, harnessing solar energy in Australia for a more sustainable nation. Imagine Australia leading in clean energy, reducing our carbon footprint for a healthier planet. This change benefits everyone, not just my generation. It's about safeguarding our environment and addressing societal needs. Solar energy isn't an option; it's an essential. By investing in solar power, we can reduce reliance on fossil fuels, cut emissions, and create renewable energy jobs. This change combats climate change, better air quality, and boosts the economy. Our parliament holds the key to this transformation. Through supportive policies, and funding, we can propel Australia toward a brighter, solar-powered future. Picture homes with solar panels, cities fueled by renewables, and inspiring global examples. In summary, embracing solar energy isn't a step, but a leap toward a sustainable future. I urge our parliament to prioritize solar initiatives. Together, we can create an enduring impact that benefits all Australians, and the generations to come. Australia can shine with the sun's boundless energy. This will forge an eco-friendly path and will create a lasting impact. Thank you. Thank you, My. Our government does know how important this is. We're working very hard to bring more renewables online and to take real climate action, and we look forward to seeing what you will do in your future. Tasmania: Cost of Living 51 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I was at the check-out in my local supermarket a month ago when a bloke about my age shouted across at me, 'Hey, Lambie, what are you doing about these supermarket prices?' He was obviously agitated and very upset. 'I've got three boys,' he said, 'and I don't know how the hell I'm going to feed them.' The Tasmanians around me were obviously nervous. To lower the temperature and calm things down, I walked up to him and took his hands in mine. I told him that I knew what it was like to be standing at the check-out, a sick feeling in your gut, looking at your shopping and trying to work out what you can do without: if you'll be eating cereal while your kids are eating a square meal. For people like me, politicians on a decent wage, the cost-of-living crisis is just a headline, but for many Australians it's a daily struggle—it's real—to keep their heads above water. And what is the Tasmanian government doing? Knocking 15 bucks off our power bills—whoopee. When the PwC scandal broke, I wanted to find out how much the Tasmanian government had been spending on consultants, so I asked the good people at the Parliamentary Library to find out. Blow me over—it was even worse than I had thought. From 2016 to 2023, the Tasmanian government spent a whopping $81 million on consultants. That's $81 million of Tasmanian taxpayers' money. Besides that shocking number, the other interesting part of this report is the many, many changes the current Tasmanian Liberal government have made since they were elected. This includes whole departments moving to different portfolios; departments changing their name, being created anew or ceasing to exist at all; and in some cases ministerial portfolios being reorganised every year. Is that why they needed to spend 81 million bucks of Tasmania's money on consultants—so they could produce lots of nice glossy brochures rejigging numbers to suit the government's spin? How about the Tasmanian government spends less money on consultants and more money helping people like the dad I ran into in the supermarket, so he can feed his boys? Road Safety 52 13:41 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania In the 12 months to September this year, there have been 33 Tasmanian families whose lives have been shattered by road fatality. Those 33 families will spend this festive season without loved ones because of the horrific reality of road trauma deaths. Nationally, that figure is 1,240. Tasmanians rely heavily on the road network. Driving is second nature, but despite an increase in driver education our road toll remains stubbornly high. Road trauma impacts everyone. The emotional toll radiates out from the victims' families and the first responders and ripples out into communities. With a son and daughter-in-law both involved as first responders, I've seen firsthand the impact that attending a serious crash or fatality has on them and their colleagues. The community impact is also evident, with an outpouring of grief often experienced, as seen recently with the shocking tragedies at Daylesford and Ashcroft. As tragic as they are, road fatalities serve as a stark reminder that we all need to be serious about road safety. Crashes can occur for many reasons, so it is important that we have the opportunity to analyse the events around them and use that learning to reduce further risk, not just for now but for future generations. That's why I support the Australian Automobile Association's Data Saves Lives campaign, calling on the Albanese Labor government to deliver on their promises made in 2022 to improve timely release of road crash data. Data is an incredible tool that can help us understand the why of a fatality or serious crash, particularly in relation to road quality and crash causation. It can help pinpoint locations that may need upgrades and help to identify crash hotspots or highlight areas previously overlooked. Data driven decisions ensure communities who need funding get funding, and it improves transparency, which is critically important. I call on the Albanese government to honour your commitment to work with the states and territories and ensure data driven decisions are central to your negotiations for the national partnership agreement on land transport infrastructure projects due next year. Health Care 52 13:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The latest Medicare urgent care clinic in Brisbane officially opened its doors to patients in Murrumba Downs last month. This means thousands of people in Brisbane's outer northern suburbs will have easier access to bulk billed services provided by highly trained doctors and nurses. Importantly, this will help ease the pressure on the nearby Redcliffe and Caboolture hospitals, where over 45 per cent of presentations have been for non-urgent or semi-urgent care. The Murrumba Downs clinic is one of 11 planned to open across Queensland, with sites in Bundaberg, Rockhampton and Townsville set to take on patients soon. Our government is delivering on our commitment to strengthen Medicare and make free health care more accessible. The former LNP government made it harder and more expensive for Australians to see a doctor. Residents of Murrumba Downs and surrounding suburbs have been let down by their local member, Mr Dutton, who offers no solutions to the high cost of accessing health care. In fact, it was their local MP, Mr Dutton, who, as health minister, tried to introduce a $7 GP tax every time someone needed to see a doctor. Our investments in Medicare will triple the bulk-billing incentive, the largest increase in the incentive in the 40-year history of Medicare. The new urgent care clinic network is easing cost-of-living pressures for families and making it easier for Australians to get the care they need. Australians know they can trust our government to keep Medicare safe and strong, because Labor built Medicare and Labor will always defend it and protect it. Defence Procurement 52 13:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales How is it that, whether it's Labor or the coalition, there is never enough money for schools, hospitals or housing, but they always seem to find the money for the tanks, the bombs and the nuclear submarines? Whenever Defence put their hand out, billions and billions of dollars just wash in. And what do they do with it? Too often they squander it and waste it. If you want to see the key example, it's the Hunter frigates procurement. We have just got the report from Defence itself on the procurement for the $45 billion Hunter frigate proposal. Forty-five billion dollars is the single biggest Commonwealth procurement anywhere at all—an extraordinary amount of money. What does Defence's own assessment show? This is after the Audit Office panned them and after I referred them off to NACC. What does Defence's assessment show? Their own review, their sanitised version of the review, says that they failed to adequately do the short-listing—stuffed that up—failed to assess the risk and failed to assess value for money, didn't even keep the records. And then they come with this bizarre conclusion drafted by Secretary Moriarty: The process was appropriately planned and conducted but for completing a comparative evaluation and ranking of the tenderers in a manner consistent with Defence procurement policy. They did everything right except assess the actual procurement! You couldn't make this stuff up. But, worse still, this bloke who stuffed it up is still the secretary and was given a five-year extension from Labor. And the person responsible for the first half of the stuff-up, former secretary Richardson, is now in charge of the Defence Strategic Review oversight. In Defence, you get $1 billion, you set fire to it, and you get promoted, whether it's Labor or the coalition. Why is nobody looking? Youth Voice in Parliament Week 53 13:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I'm going to read a speech from Elsie, a Canberran: I am Elsie, age 11 years old, and I live in the electorate of Canberra in the A.C.T. How would I make Australia a better place for future generations? I would start with the natural environment around them. I would like the Government to focus more on the conservation and protection of the environment and endangered species, such as the critically endangered Banksia cuneata or Matchstick Banksia, and the endangered, and incredibly cute, Mountain Pygmy-possum, Burramys parvus. I believe that to have a happy, healthy lifestyle, you need to be surrounded by happy, healthy living things. Scientific studies show that being around thriving nature can not only make you better emotionally, but also boost your physical health, reducing blood pressure, heart rate, muscle tension, and the production of stress hormones. They also show that being around animals can reduce the production of cortisol and lower blood pressure. Other studies show that animals can reduce loneliness, increase feelings of social support and boost your mood. Sadly, some natural environments, like forests and parks, are being removed for agricultural purposes or housing. This means that future generations won't have access to nature and the natural environment. But we can change that. If we focus on the protection of places like parks and nature reserves, we will be able to work towards a better future for generations to come. This is how I believe we can make a better Australia for future generations. Immigration Detention 53 13:49 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak about the total failure of the Albanese Labor government to appropriately prepare for and respond to the recent High Court decision which has led to the worst types of criminal offenders without Australian citizenship being released into our Australian community. There has been a total failure by the Albanese Labor government to respond to that High Court decision and to prepare for it. Don't just believe my words in relation to this, those in the gallery and those listening. I want to tell you Sonya's story. Sonya is from my home state of Queensland, and her story was reported in the Guardian on 14 November, Tuesday this week. This is Sonya's story. Sonya's rapist has now been released into the community. When he was paroled from his rape, he was put into permanent detention because he's not an Australian citizen. He was put in permanent detention, and Sonya was told, 'He would never be free in Australia, so I didn't need to worry.' That's what Sonya thought. So imagine how Sonya felt when, on Saturday, she was rung by a member of the Queensland Police Service? The article said: … the officer was 'really lovely' and seemed upset himself, but was unable to answer basic questions such as whether Rafiq had conditions placed on his visa, and whether he was prohibited from approaching her. 'They didn't particularly have a plan, from what he could see.' This is how Sonya felt; these are the words of Sonya, a victim of this rapist who has been released into the Australian community. She said she started 'crying immediately' then felt a 'numbness'. This is the human face of the gross incompetence of this Albanese Labor government. Labor Government 53 13:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I draw the Senate's attention to remarks on Monday by ANZ Chief Executive Officer Shane Elliott. He said: Australia's massive green energy transition and immigration boom will further boost rising house prices. Lending regulations have made this the most challenging lending environment in 30 years. The 30 years reference is to Labor Prime Minister Keating's 17 per cent interest rate nightmare. Labor has form on making life harder. These remarks are confirmation the government's insane levels of arrivals are one cause of the inflation that's hurting everyday Australians. The outgoing future fund chair, Peter Costello, warned Australia's runaway immigration levels represent 'an enormous adjustment for the property sector and the Reserve Bank's inflation fight'. Why is Labor, once called the party of the worker, pursuing an immigration policy that is creating high inflation and harming Australian workers so badly? Australia did not vote for high immigration, and Prime Minister Albanese has no mandate for this insanity, this inhumanity. Nor was the Prime Minister forthcoming in the last election about the true cost of net zero. Net zero Australia puts the cost at $1.5 trillion by 2050. If life feels hard now, we're only a few hundred billion into the $1.5 trillion. Buckle up, this is going to hurt! The tragedy is that we already had a great electricity capacity and the world's most affordable, reliable electricity. And you globalist puppets are tearing it down and building a worse option: weather dependent power. Insane! As Shane Elliott asked, is this the society we want, where people can't get a home loan or get a loan to start a business? Labor's answer is clearly yes. That's what life under Labor means—no home, no business, no future, no energy. One Nation will reverse this immigration and energy net zero perfect storm of financial and social mismanagement. We will reverse this perfect storm of dishonesty and stupidity and callousness. Climate Change 54 13:53 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Over the last few days we have again heard such strong and loud calls from young people, from women, from climate activists and from the Pacific islands leaders for Australia to act on climate. Devy, Sikha, Flora Vano, Rabia and Rhiannon are some of the women leading climate solutions across the Asia Pacific. The climate crisis is not gender-neutral. Women and girls are impacted first and worst, particularly in the poorest countries, which are least responsible for it. It is affecting their lives every single day. It is affecting their ability to be educated as school are closed due to extreme heat, as funding for their education is used for disaster management and recovery. As access to water in schools becomes harder and harder, there is no water for girls' sanitary needs and during menstruation. I thank these women for their tireless activism for climate justice. Every day that the Labor government delays ending new coal and gas is a day that worsens the impacts for these women and girls. We also had a display in parliament of artefacts created by communities from across the world, including the Pacific, South Asia and South-East Asia, the Caribbean and the Torres Strait. These artefacts are such important reminders of the unique aspects of culture and tradition that we are set to lose if we don't tackle the climate crisis. Each piece was a testament to the unique customs, beliefs and practices that have defined generations of communities. Those on the front line of the climate crisis bear a disproportionate burden, and wealthy colonial countries like Australia bear profound responsibility. So we must do more, and that means no new fossil fuels. That means contributing our fair share to the loss and damage fund. That means paying climate reparations. This is not charity. This is a debt owed for the harms that we have caused. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 54 13:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I am rising to read out a contribution from one of my constituents as part of the Youth Voice in Parliament Week: I am Amelie. I'm 10 years old and live in the electorate of Canberra in the ACT. How would I make a change for future generations? First, I need to tell you about the Murray-Darling Basin. The Murray-Darling Basin is a drainage basin, incorporating six of Australia's seven largest rivers, and covers an area through Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT. It's very important to the survival of unique flora and fauna and to agriculture. Many farms are sucking in water from the Murray-Darling Basin, like almond farms and cotton farms. They are using too much water, and a lot of fish are dying from a decrease in oxygen in the water that is being taken by blue-green algae that hasn't been cleaned up. I have concerns that the Murray-Darling Basin is going to dry up, and all the fish will die. Blue-green algae is also killing the basin. Blue-green algae can only live in warm places like the Murray-Darling Basin, but it is getting cold and when it gets too cold, the algae will begin to die and suck in more oxygen to attempt to survive. Again, I ask: how could you make a change for the future generations? Well, I would start with removing the dead algae, filtering in more water and to stop using too much water from the river system. I would like to make a change for the better. I know I can do something that may not sound like much, but here are some tips: re-use plastic, show care to the environment and spread the news that you can help so many people. Everybody can help this situation, and I mean everyone. Thank you to Amelie for that contribution and for having that permanently in the Hansard now. I think the Youth Voice in Parliament Week is a great initiative, and I was really proud to read out Amelie's words today. Queensland: Infrastructure 54 13:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm very pleased to advise the chamber today that the Albanese government is delivering to Queensland again. Today we are committing an extra $2 billion towards Queensland infrastructure projects in addition to the federal infrastructure funding that has already been committed. Whether it's the Bruce Highway, the M1, the Rocky Ring Road, faster rail to the Gold Coast or projects right across our state, from Cairns and Cape York through to Normanton and the south-east corner, we are delivering. What a contrast with Peter Dutton and the coalition, who left us saddled with projects that had blown out by billions and billions of dollars, with no funding, with no business cases, with no skilled labour and with no chance whatsoever of being delivered. In contrast to that, the Albanese government is delivering $2 billion extra for infrastructure for Queensland to deliver 15 projects—where costs have gone up, but we will be delivering—in addition to 212 projects all up across Queensland that will proceed with funding from the Albanese government. I am surprised and disappointed that the opposition doesn't welcome the fact that the Albanese government is delivering $2 billion in extra funding for Queensland infrastructure, rather than cutting the amount we're giving, and we are preserving every single dollar for the Bruce Highway up and down our state, to let these projects go ahead, rather than making the hollow promises that we used to see from the coalition. Qantas 55 13:59 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia What a great day it is today. The court has found that Qantas illegally sacked TWU workplace hero Theo Seremetidis. He was found to have been unlawfully dismissed. Now is the time, more than ever, to send a message to Richard Goyder, the chairman of Qantas, who had his filthy hands all over this, as well as illegally sacking 1,700 workers. He needs to follow them out the door. The sooner Goyder goes, the better for Australia, the better for our travelling public, the better for our airline industry. He must go! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 55 13:59 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, Senator Watt. During the High Court proceedings on the NZYQ case on 2 June this year Justice Gleeson strongly signalled that the court may rule against indefinite detention stating: 'It seemed to me that I ought not let this directions hearing go past without acknowledging that the purpose of his detention is for removal, and yet it seems that, on one view of the facts, capacity for removal is likely diminishing from very little to none. I draw that to your attention as a factual matter that may ultimately be relevant.' She also made other comments of a similar nature. Why did the government not immediately prepare legislation in anticipation of this likely contingency instead of waiting until dangerous criminals had already been released into the community? 14:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Paterson. I am aware of those remarks that were made by Justice Gleeson in the High Court. I'm also aware of some remarks that Senator Paterson made in this chamber the other day while Senator Wong was answering a question. He interjected and made the point that the High Court's ruling overturned 20 years of precedent. It seems that at least at the time Senator Paterson made those interjections, he was aware that a High Court decision had been in place with a clear ruling on this matter of law for 20 years and that the decision that ultimately was received by the full bench of the High Court overturned those 20 years of precedents. For Senator Paterson to come in now and pretend that he had a crystal ball that this decision was going to end up the way it did is completely disingenuous and goes against the comments he made earlier in the week. In addition to that, what we also know is the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, knew for a number of years that this was an issue when he was the Minister for Home Affairs, and he did not do anything to address the issue either. Our urgent legislation that we introduced today— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, on a point of order? Senator Paterson 144138 It's on direct relevance: the questions was about comments that Justice Gleeson made in June this year. Last time I checked, Peter Dutton was not in government in June this year—you were. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant to your question. Senator WATT 245759 It's interesting that the opposition is so defensive of Mr Dutton's record as the Minister for Home Affairs. He was also the home affairs minister who presided over a completely broken migration system, which was exposed in the Nixon report. Senator Birmingham H6X President, my point of order is on direct relevance. Clearly the minister is not being directly relevant to the specifics of the question Senator Paterson asked. President, I'd urge you to engage more frequently when a minister is so directly pivoting to comments on the opposition or on matters that are extraneous to the specifics of the question and to more proactively draw the minister back to the question that has been asked. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I think I do respond, and I was about to respond to Minister Watt when I saw you stand, so I took your point of order. Minister Watt, I refer you back to the question. Senator WATT 245759 It has just been drawn to my attention that in fact Senator Paterson is misrepresented the remarks of Justice Gleeson as well. Justice Gleeson's comments in June did not indicate the likely judgement of the High Court. She said, 'In a sense what you seem to be saying is that his position is utterly hopeless, that there is nothing that could be done to ready him from removal.' That is far from that the High Court full bench was going to end up making the decision it made. Notwithstanding that, we have produced urgent legislation within a very short time, and we invite the opposition to work with us to get it done. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria When did the government first become aware that penalties for breaches of visa conditions by this cohort would be unenforceable given that the ultimate consequence of a breach is detention, which has just been ruled unconstitutional by the High Court? 14:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What matters here is that the government is taking action to fix this problem. Government senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 I have barely started answering the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, on a point of order? Senator Paterson 144138 Madam President, it's on direct relevance. The minister is right that he had barely started answering the question, but he indicated in his first few words that he is not going to attempt to engage in the question, which is: when did the government first become aware? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, the minister had just got to his feet. You have reminded him of the question. Senator WATT 245759 The government first became aware of the High Court's decision and the implications that flowed from it when the High Court delivered their decision, and, as I've said before, they haven't delivered their reasons yet. Notwithstanding that, we have moved expeditiously to fix this issue. We've invited the opposition to help us with this, but all they've continued to do all week is to play politics with the issue. What we've seen from Mr Dutton, in usual form, is him trying to play politics and trying to divide people rather than working constructively with the government to try to find a solution. We know that is the way he operates. We know that is the way the coalition operates, rather than actually working constructively to deal with the High Court decision that overturned 20 years of precedent and that now needs to be fixed, and we're committed to fixing it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:05 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria When did the government first direct the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to draft legislation to address the serious risks to community safety which follow from the High Court's ruling? 14:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've personally heard both Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil say this week that the legal implications of this decision were being considered before a decision came down. There were contingency plans being developed. That's what led, for instance, to us imposing a number of conditions on the people that were released into the community, extremely quickly, as soon as they were released into the community—things like reporting to police, avoiding— Senator Paterson 144138 Madam President, do I really need to make a point of order on direct relevance here? I asked about the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The minister has not mentioned those words or when the advice was first given to them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU The question goes to the drafting of legislation. The minister's first sentence went to the answers that have been given by the relevant ministers in the other place on that topic, so I submit that his answer is clearly relevant. If the opposition doesn't want to hear about the other measures for community safety, I think that says something about their political motives. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, I believe the minister is being relevant. I will, however, listen to the remainder of his answer, and, if he strays, I'll draw him back to the question. Senator WATT 245759 The government has now introduced legislation to deal with this emerging issue. We have sought to work with the opposition to have that legislation passed, and Mr Dutton, Senator Paterson and every member of the coalition has a decision to make. Are they going to continue playing politics on this matter— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I will draw you back to the question. Senator WATT 245759 Yes. Are they going to continue playing politics or work with us to make the community safer? Medicare 57 14:07 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government made a commitment to the Australian people that it would strengthen Medicare so that Australians can access medical care whenever they need it. Could the minister please update the Senate on the delivery of this critical commitment and how it is supporting Australians at a time of increased cost-of-living pressures? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for the question and for her focus on health care and Medicare, which is something that I know every Australian holds dear to their heart. We went to the election promising we would make it easier and cheaper to see a doctor, and we are delivering on that promise with the biggest investment in bulk-billing in the 40-year history of Medicare. It'll make it easier for more than 11 million Australians to see a bulk-billing doctor—because we know that, over a decade of cuts to and neglect of Medicare under the former government, bulk-billing rates declined sharply. Because of our government's actions, it will be easier for five million children and their families and for seven million pensioners and other concession card holders to find a bulk-billing doctor. Together, these patients account for around three out of the five visits to general practice. In our major cities, a doctor will get 34 per cent more for a standard bulk-billed consultation of under 20 minutes, taking the Medicare payment for eligible patients to over $60. In regional and rural Australia, a doctor will get around 50 per cent more for the same visit, taking the Medicare payment to between $70 and just over $80, depending on the location. Doctors themselves have called this a game changer. We've heard from doctors across the country that this will allow them to bulk-bill their patients. Whether they're a family in Brisbane, a pensioner in Geraldton or a concession card holder in the Hunter Valley, they will all get bulk-billed care, thanks to this multibillion dollar investment. All they'll need to do is show their Medicare card. Senator Ruston 243273 Stop telling lies! Senator GALLAGHER ING This is part of our government's commitment to strengthen Medicare— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I ask Senator Ruston to withdraw that. Senator Ruston 243273 I withdraw. Senator GALLAGHER ING This is all part of our government's commitment to strengthen Medicare and address the cost-of-living crunch. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a first supplementary? 14:09 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you to the minister for that response. It is truly a significant leap forward. I am also aware of the important role urgent-care clinics are playing in relieving demands on our hospital system. Could the minister please provide an update on the rollout of the urgent-care clinics? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes, I can. Thank you, Senator Grogan. These urgent-care clinics are already proving to be a massive success, taking pressure off emergency departments, open seven days a week, with extended hours. They're bulk billed, and all patients need is their Medicare card. A total of 38 are open, out of 58. There have been more than 60,000 presentations to Medicare urgent-care clinics. Across the country this represents an estimated potential saving to public hospital EDs of more than $15.8 million in patient episodes. Across the country nearly a third of patients have been under 15 years of age. Nearly a third of visits have taken place on weekends, and on weekdays more than one in five visits have taken place after six o'clock. Urgent-care clinics are already, in their early days, serving local communities across Australia, and they're all going to be open by the end of this year. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a second supplementary? 14:11 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Can the minister please further outline the impact that recent changes to bulk billing are having on improving access to health care for millions of Australians as part of the government's commitment to strengthening Medicare? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It is interesting that Senator Ruston has a lot to say about Medicare now. It's a shame she didn't have as much to say about it when they were actually in government— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING and we are dealing with the consequences of their failure to invest in Medicare—a lot of opinions now, not so many opinions when in government; didn't do a thing, other than driving primary health care into the crisis position that we inherited and that we are now turning around, with the help of the GP workforce. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I've called order in the chamber, and that applies to you. Senator GALLAGHER ING The tripling of the bulk billing incentive, the biggest investment in bulk billing in the history of Medicare, is already making a difference. Dr Michael Clements, a GP from Magnetic Island, has said: 'Thank you very much for the tripling of the bulk billing incentive. It has made a difference and we've actually returned from private billing children and pensioners to bulk billing them, because it's a significant difference.' We understand that those opposite hate Medicare, they hate bulk billing, they hate strengthening Medicare, but this is something this government takes seriously. (Time expired) Cost of Living 58 14:12 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. On Tuesday, in response to a question from Senator McGrath, you said that in many countries inflation peaked higher than it did in Australia. You went on to say, 'So, it would make sense that our return to inflation to a target range will be later than in those other countries.' Minister, why is inflation staying higher for longer in Australia than in countries where it hit an even higher peak? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The point I made earlier in the week is the correct point—that the inflation challenge arrived in this country later than it did in similar economies around the world. Obviously when your inflation challenge is going along the trajectory that we have seen in this country it will take time to come down. That's what we've seen in other countries as well. That is what happens. In many of those countries it peaked higher than it peaked here, and it is tapering off now, as it is here in Australia. Senator Bragg 256063 No it's not; it's getting worse! Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I'm sorry if you don't accept the data, but that is what the data shows. The government has the responsibility to deal with this inflation challenge that we inherited from the failure of your government to make the necessary investments, particularly in the productive side of the economy and also in areas like the energy transition, and others, which you failed to address. We are now addressing it, and we are ensuring that the decisions we take don't add to the inflation challenge in the economy. That has been supported—as much as you don't like to admit it—by the new Reserve Bank governor, by the Treasury secretary and by the ABS in the data that they have provided on the monthly inflation figures, where we've seen that the decisions that this government took to put downward pressure on inflation, despite your opposition to it, have actually taken half a per cent off CPI. That is the result of the decisions that the government have taken, and we're doing that, we're repairing the budget and we're investing in the productive side of the economy—dealing with housing, skills and the energy transition all at same time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a first supplementary? 14:15 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Speaking of governors of the Reserve Bank, the former governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Lowe, told Senate estimates: All the evidence is that if inflation stays high for too long, expectations adjust and that ultimately leads to higher interest rates and more unemployment. Minister, with even the government admitting that inflation is now staying higher for longer in Australia, are you failing the former RBA governor's test, with Australians now having to endure higher interest rates and risking more unemployment? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you. The language I used—and it seems to have confused those opposite—is language that I've used for some time in this place, and, indeed, for the Treasurer. I would draw your attention to the RBA's recent Statement on monetary policy, where they have updated their forecast on CPI. They remain largely in line with the forecasts that we released as part of our budget in May. And I know it really kills those opposite, but we have words from the new Reserve Bank governor saying that the decisions that we are taking are good and enough in terms of our fiscal strategy. Yes, I know you didn't like that at estimates, but that is what they said. We've got the Treasury secretary's evidence, and we have got the evidence coming directly out of the ABS. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary? 14:17 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The Economist has published data showing that inflation in Australia was more entrenched than in the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, the United States, France, Italy, Spain, South Korea and Japan. OECD data shows that real household income has fallen faster in Australia over the last year of the Labor government than in any other advanced economy. (Time expired) 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government has a plan; you just choose to ignore it. You just choose to ignore it and oppose it at the same time and then criticise us. That's your plan—ignore, oppose and criticise. Meanwhile, we're rolling out cost-of-living relief, getting the budget in much better shape and investing in energy, skills and housing. Indeed, you quote from the Economist; how about I quote from the IMF: The Government has saved the bulk of the recent revenue windfalls, indicating a desire to maintain a fiscal stance supportive of reducing inflation and pursue prudent fiscal policies. Did you see that? You just put that in the outbox, didn't you? Better not use that; that's not useful! We've got a plan, we're rolling out the plan and the plan is working. The ABS data shows just how our plan is working in relation to child-care costs, in relation to electricity— (Time expired) First Nations Australians: Cultural Heritage 59 14:18 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to ask a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Minister Farrell. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, Minister Farrell has leave of absence. Senator COX 296215 Who's taking his questions? It's Senator Watt—I draw the lucky straw today! Right across the country, sacred sites, including on the Tiwi Islands and Murujuga in my home state of Western Australia, are under threat from resources companies. These sites hold knowledge and stories that are tens of thousands of years old. Murujuga holds some of the most ancient rock art in the world, and much of it has been destroyed. The current pipeline of the Barossa project north of the Tiwi Islands will impact sacred burial sites and songlines, and, indeed, the first point of contact for humans on this continent. Minister, my question is: what is your government doing to protect First Nations cultural heritage, instead of trying to justify it for corporate profits, and what are you doing to protect our precious ecosystems and sacred places? 14:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Cox. I will do my best to represent Senator Farrell, who's representing Minister King. Obviously, this government takes the matters that you've raised very seriously. We absolutely respect First Nations cultural heritage right across our country, and these are important matters that need to be considered in the context of any proposed resource development, whether it be in the Northern Territory or anywhere else. Senator Cox, you would be aware that the government does have a process underway around the amendments to and reconsideration of cultural heritage legislation. That matter actually is being led by Minister Plibersek, as I understand it. I'm happy to provide you with some further information about where that process is up to, but the point remains that we do need to get to a place in Australia where important cultural heritage sites for our First Nations people are respected. Obviously, our government does also support resource developments going ahead and other projects that create jobs and produce economic development, including for First Nations communities, but those projects need to proceed in a way that does respect First Nations cultural heritage. A lot of this debate has of course been prompted by the terrible scenes that we saw involving Juukan Gorge, which I think gave all Australians and resource companies some pause for thought about the interaction between those types of developments and projects and First Nations heritage. I'm happy to provide you with some further information on that as it comes to hand. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU President, through you, I am advised that, as Senator Watt just indicated, this question probably ought to have been directed to me, as the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. If the senator wishes to continue otherwise, can I just indicate the opposition would give leave—the government would give leave— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU I had a lot of years! The government would give leave for the supplementary to come to me, if it would be of any assistance. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, first supplementary? Just name which minister. 14:22 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Thank you, Senator Wong. I will direct my questions to you. The fact of the matter is that this government and successive governments have allowed, and continue to allow, sacred sites to be destroyed for the sake of the resources industry. Will this government step in and ensure that the resources industry are not allowed to destroy sacred sites, such as those on the Tiwi Islands and Murujuga, simply so they can line their pockets and destroy this planet? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We have a regulatory framework in place that is intended to assure the protection of Indigenous cultural heritage. However, Senator, you are right to point to the examples of particular companies not acting in accordance with that regulatory framework. The most egregious example of that is, of course, Juukan Gorge. I know a parliamentary committee did make very clear representations about the importance of strengthening Commonwealth cultural heritage protections following the destruction of Juukan Gorge. That was agreed. The minister has outlined a consultation process for that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, second supplementary? 14:24 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I want to acknowledge some of the Tiwi Islands traditional owners that are in the gallery here today. Their traditional owners have been in court multiple times now, fighting the Barossa gas field project in the Northern Territory. These determinations have largely shown how the legislative framework is not designed to account for First Nations cultural heritage, especially when it's underwater or intangible. How is your government going to address this? 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I welcome the community representatives and elders here today. We are aware of court proceedings in relation to the Barossa project. You would understand, Senator—just as I understand why you are asking me the question—that, as the matter remains before the courts, the government and in fact the Senate, as a general rule, will not be commenting on matters before the Federal Court. I would note that the federal government is not party to these proceedings. Senator Waters 192970 At least you're not against the duty of care. Senator WONG 00AOU Well, there are two points. Again, we're not a party to the proceedings. Secondly— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, I'm advised—and I will correct the record if I am wrong—that the Commonwealth of Australia is not a party to these proceedings. (Time expired) Infrastructure 60 14:25 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. I refer to the Albanese Labor government's commitment to reform the way the Commonwealth funds infrastructure and undo a decade of bad decisions. What did the infrastructure review released by the minister today find? 14:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sheldon. I know Senator Sheldon, along with all senators on this side of the chamber, understands the importance of infrastructure to local communities as well as knowing how important it is that Australians are able to trust the promises of their government. As we all know, the previous government left the infrastructure investment pipeline in a complete mess, and the review that Minister King released today makes that clear. Senator McKenzie 207825 What about Qatar Airways? Senator WATT 245759 I'm not surprised that, of all people, Senator McKenzie might have to say something about this—of course, the master of the spreadsheet sitting over there with her green highlighter out, colouring up the National Party projects and every now and then a Liberal Party project, but mostly National Party projects. I know today is an embarrassing day for Senator McKenzie and all members of the National Party in— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X On a point of order—and, indeed, I think Senator Colbeck just nailed it—he's not even being relevant to the question he was asked as a dixer. But of course he is also seeking to impugn a senator and imply motives. Senator Watt should withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt. Senator WATT 245759 They are a bit toey about allocated spreadsheets. As we all know, the previous government left the infrastructure investment pipeline— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, sorry, I just assumed I wouldn't have to repeat Senator Birmingham's request for you to withdraw. My apologies. I should have. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I apologise to the chamber. I was not listening with all of my full attention, but I would be grateful if you could be clear, at least across the table, with what words you are asking him to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, it is my habit to specifically request for personal reflections never to be repeated, and I really don't want to diverge from that. Senator Watt usually withdraws. I think it was close, but, in the interests of a calm chamber, I would ask that the comments be withdrawn. Senator Wong 00AOU There was a reference to some of the evidence which was presented to the Senate about what occurred in relation to that program, including the colour-coded spreadsheets. That's on the public record. The PRESIDENT 112096 No. There was a reference to Senator McKenzie. In the interests of the calmness of the chamber, I would ask Senator Watt to withdraw. Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Watt. Senator WATT 245759 The review that Minister King released today found a pipeline of infrastructure inherited from the coalition that was jam-packed with backed-up projects that were announced without the support of states or territories, poorly scoped, underfunded at the outset or designed simply to win votes. The infrastructure program was spiralling out of control under the coalition, having blown out from 150 to almost 800 projects. It has become clear that the previous government was addicted to announcements and colour-coded spreadsheets and neglected the hard work of building real infrastructure. While they may have had— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Rennick? Senator Rennick 283596 Point of order, Chair: I'm sick and tired of the reference to colour-coded spreadsheets. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Rennick. That is not— Senator Rennick 283596 As an accountant— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick! Order across the chamber! Senator Rennick, I am rather surprised because you do normally sit when asked to, and I remind you that, when I require you to sit, you sit. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 As Senator Wong has pointed out, it was a pretty uncomfortable episode for all Australians to have a government led by colour coded spreadsheets, and even now they still boast about it. The coalition's legacy and the path they set for this nation was $33 billion in cost blowouts and an inability to add any new infrastructure projects to the pipeline until the 2033. This is a breathtaking indictment on the Liberals' and Nationals' economic management and their failure to genuinely deliver for our communities. That's the coalition's legacy; under them, we would have had no new infrastructure projects until 2033. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 14:30 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Under the Liberals and Nationals, the $120 billion investment pipeline was left in a total mess, as you outlined: underfunded, poorly prepared and with out-of-control cost blowouts. How is the Albanese Labor government demonstrating its commitment to nation-building infrastructure and bringing certainty to the infrastructure sector? 14:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We will be implementing the recommendations of this independent review, and that's because, in the words of the reviewers, 'There are projects in the infrastructure investment pipeline that do not demonstrate merit, lack any national strategic rationale and do not meet the Australian government's national investment priorities.' What a great investment program! What a great government you were! What great economic managers you were! Unlike the coalition, we will be investing in projects that enhance productivity by removing traffic bottlenecks and building resilience in our supply chains. We are committed to a better approach, focusing on delivering nationally significant infrastructure that aligns with our broader national priorities in housing and critical minerals. We'll be investing in projects, as I said, that remove traffic bottlenecks and build resilience in our supply chains—projects that improve liveability of the cities and regions we call home and projects that contribute to sustainability and reduce our emissions, like public transport. We're also reshaping how we fund projects to ensure a genuine partnership with the states. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 14:32 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Under the Liberals and Nationals, the number of infrastructure projects in the pipeline blew out from 150 to 180, but, as always, delivery was a secondary consideration. How will the infrastructure and its outcome allow the government to invest more in the projects that matter? 14:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland They are great questions. This review and the implementation of it will have real benefits for Australians, allowing our government to end the waste and rorts that we saw under the coalition and invest more in the projects that matter. Over the next 10 years, more than 400 individual ongoing projects are expected to be completed or substantially developed, including the north-south corridor in Adelaide, where we have proposed an additional $2.7 billion dollars in addition to the funding that was already committed; Logan and Gold Coast faster rail, where we've proposed an additional $1.8 billion on top of what we've already committed; the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace through the Hunter, where works on the next section will start imminently; and METRONET, in Western Australia, where we've proposed an additional $1 billion. Those opposite may claim there are cuts while at the same time saying we should cut government spending, but you wouldn't want to look for consistency. They're making it up. We're not taking a single cent out of the infrastructure investment of the federal government. Health Care 62 14:33 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. The government's 60-day dispensing policy began on 1 September. Since then, several small pharmacies in Tasmania have reduced their opening hours and reduced staff hours. Launceston's only late-night pharmacy now shuts at 8 pm instead of 10 pm. One regional pharmacy chose not to put on a new pharmacist or take on a new trainee, because they couldn't afford it. Does the government recognise that their 60-day dispensing policy, while helping to reduce costs for patients, has hurt some small pharmacies? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for her question and her engagement on this issue for a long period of time. I would say that, from the data that government has been looking at, we're still seeing quite a lot of investment continuing to come into the pharmacy sector. In the five months since we announced the policies, there have been 48 applications to the government to open new pharmacies, 50 per cent more than we received in the same period last year. The 10000 Order, Senator Ruston! Senator GALLAGHER ING In the first month of the policy, another five applications to open new pharmacies were received and five applications were approved. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Senator GALLAGHER ING Do you have a question, Senator Ruston? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, I have Senator Wong on her feet. Senator Wong 00AOU Senator Ruston has been called three times, and she's still interjecting now. As you're talking, President, she is still interrupting. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Wong. Senator Ruston, I called you three times— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Seriously, that is disrespectful. I called you three times. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I would ask for silence across the chamber. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Obviously, individual businesses will make decisions around their operating arrangements, and I'm sure the Minister for Health and Aged Care would be happy to engage with you on the particular pharmacies you raise in Tasmania. We have sought to address some of the concerns that were raised around regional pharmacies in particular. The decision we took will allow around 400,000 pharmacies, from our largest rural towns to our most remote communities, to provide more services to more Australians in the way that they operate now. We are also continuing to work with the pharmacy sector on other opportunities there are to increase the services that they provide, including through negotiations for the next replacement agreement. I am happy to see if there's anything further I can provide the senator in relation to the Tasmania-specific elements of her question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:36 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Many pharmacies in remote areas aren't eligible for the regional pharmacy transition payments this year because they don't dispense enough scripts. This doesn't make a lot of sense: you're not going to dispense 45,000 scripts a year in a town with a population of 900. Will the government admit that announcements like the transition payments are more about political spin and don't do enough to help regional pharmacies? 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The answer to that question is no, not at all. The decision we took was to support pharmacies with this change, particularly those in regional and rural areas, but at the same time to accept that this is a genuine cost-of-living measure for Australian households, particularly those that rely on regular medication to save them from paying unnecessary costs associated with managing their illness. I know that 200,000 scripts for 60 days have been issued in the first month of operation, so there are many individuals who will have benefited from that arrangement, in terms of the money that they have to provide. But it was always cost-of-living relief for individuals and households. It was always at no save to the budget. The extra investment went into addressing some of the concerns that pharmacies had raised. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:38 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The health minister says that, between the maintenance allowance and the transition allowance, the average reduction in dispensing revenue will be offset to this financial year, but for one pharmacy in Tasmania this will barely cover a third of the loss from 60-day dispensing. What do you have to say to that pharmacy—the pharmacist's name is Judy, by the way—who are doing everything they can to stay afloat but feel completely let down by their government? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would say to that pharmacist that the government wants to work with pharmacies and look at extra services that can be provided in terms of the work that they do. We are talking to the Pharmacy Guild and others through the Community Pharmacy Agreement. We want to support the work of pharmacies, but we don't believe that that should come out of the hip pocket of Australians who are struggling to afford to pay their medicines. That is the point of the reform. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Ruston, who continues to ignore your direction, President, wants to have it both ways. She wants to pretend that the coalition supports the cost-of-living measure and then beat the government up on every other aspect. It is, as usual, so hypocritical. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I again raise that Senator Ruston, despite being called by you on numerous occasions, has not stopped interjecting. There are provisions in the standing orders to deal with a persistent and wilful obstruction of the business of the Senate. I ask her, through you— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Senator Wong 00AOU And she's still doing it. We understand interjections are a part of this place, but— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Senator Wong 00AOU And again, she's unable to stop. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU No, she's talking to me, actually. I would ask you to remind her of the standing orders. She is a senior member of the opposition— Senator Henderson ZN4 You're not the President. Senator Wong 00AOU I know I'm not the President. I'm addressing the President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Henderson! Senators, during question time I am reluctant to sit either the person asking the question or the minister down while I restore order. That is why I often name senators. I would expect that, if I name a senator, you would stop the interjections. Senator Ruston, I have called you at least five times and I called you twice just then. I would ask that you stop the interjections. The minister is to be heard in silence. Senator GALLAGHER ING On the Tasmanian part of the question specifically, I have undertaken to come back to the senator directly. Infrastructure 64 14:41 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister Watt. After 200 days of the Albanese government's so-called short, sharp 90-day review, Labor has taken the axe to 50 major infrastructure projects and thrown another 252 projects into uncertainty. Major project cancelled by Labor include the M7 to M12 Interchange in New South Wales, the Frankston to Baxter rail upgrade in Victoria and the Mooloolah River Interchange in Queensland as well as projects to remove heavy vehicles from the main streets of Hahndorf and Pinjarra. Minister, with the government swinging the axe today on these important projects, what is the exact dollar figure of the cuts to the infrastructure investment pipeline across each year of the forward estimates? 14:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I could give a short answer, and the answer would be zero because the government has maintained every single dollar of the $120 billion that was contained in the infrastructure investment program we inherited from the coalition. Of course, the problem is that that infrastructure, which was developed by Senator McKenzie and her colleagues with their colour-coded spreadsheets, had blown out by $33 billion. It's an infrastructure program that had blown out from 150 projects to over 800 projects, so it's completely unable to be delivered— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Senator WATT 245759 no funding, no skilled labour, in some cases no business plans and certainly no hope whatsoever of being delivered. It has been interesting this week to hear the different messages coming out of the Liberals and the Nationals because most of the time we hear from the Liberals that we need to cut spending to bring inflation under control, but on the other hand we have the Nationals and some of the Liberals saying, 'Oh no, spend my money, spend more money on infrastructure.' This morning, for instance, Senator Bragg, who we know is auditioning for the role of shadow assistant Treasurer along with half of the other backbench, tweeted that Australian inflation is worse than other economies because Labor isn't running a contractionary budget. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I will draw you back to Senator McKenzie's question. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Bragg and his colleagues want a contractionary budget, Senator McKenzie and her colleagues want us to spend more money on infrastructure— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, on a point of order? Senator McKenzie 207825 It's on direct relevance. You also instructed the minister back to the forward estimates profiling, and I would appreciate him— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, to be fair, I directed the minister to the whole of your question. I will remind him once again. Senator McAllister 121628 To the point of order, I would simply observe that Senator McKenzie's question did go to budget matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, as you would have heard, I completely addressed your point of order. Minister Watt, I draw you back to the question. Senator WATT 245759 As I said, the government is preserving every single dollar of the $120 billion infrastructure program that we inherited. What we're doing in the process is delivering more money for a number of states to deliver more infrastructure. In my home state of Queensland, for example, we are providing more than $2 billion of extra funding for infrastructure projects, compared to what was already provided. That will allow us to deliver a number of projects that didn't have the funding that the coalition pretended to provide. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:45 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Labor has been dragged kicking and screaming to reveal the full list of projects to be axed, but they are still failing to hand over the list of delayed projects, leaving local councils, communities, contractors and construction workers in the dark on whether their projects will go ahead. When will you reveal the details of what your cuts mean to project timeframes? Or will these, like the 50 projects that got the axe, mean more broken promises? You didn't answer the forward estimates question. (Time expired) 14:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator McKenzie, I'm not sure what you were doing at around 10 o'clock this morning, but at 10 o'clock this morning Catherine King, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, delivered a press conference where she actually went through this entire issue in detail: the projects that are proceeding, the projects that are being delayed and the projects that have no hope whatsoever of being delivered. As I said, just to take Queensland as one example, we are providing more than $2 billion extra funding in infrastructure to deliver a range of projects—the Brisbane to the Gold Coast rail and the Rockhampton ring road, which I know Senator Canavan has been very exercised about—right across Queensland. A range of projects right across Australia can now actually proceed because the Albanese government has done the hard work of looking at each of those projects and working out what can be delivered, what there is funding for, what there is a business case for and which ones, in contrast, had no hope ever of being delivered and were only lines on a press release. That's what we used to get from the National Party in an infrastructure program, not real funding and real projects. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 14:46 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The Albanese government's Rudd-era policy of reducing federal funding from 80-20 to 50-50 and to an arbitrary minimum value of half a billion dollars will mean an immediate and devastating cut for projects across regional Australia. Minister, with road fatalities rising and freight demand ever increasing, why are you cutting infrastructure funding for regional Australia by 30 per cent and making it next to impossible for future projects in the regions to be funded? 14:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Unfortunately, Senator McKenzie, just because you say it doesn't mean it's true. Again, to give you one example from Queensland, take the Bruce Highway, the backbone of our state. What had been promised under your government was close to $10 billion in funding for the Bruce Highway. How much is being committed by the Albanese government? About $10 billion, exactly the same amount of money. That is the case right across the country. Even with this change towards 50-50 funding, which has traditionally applied in relation to federal funding of infrastructure projects— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator WATT 245759 what that means is the Bruce Highway has exactly the same amount of money provided for it as it did yesterday, as it did last year and as it did the year before. That is replicated across so many other states. The Albanese government is delivering infrastructure funding— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, I called you, and you continued to interject. You are being disrespectful. I'm asking for silence as the minister responds to your question. Senator WATT 245759 To take Queensland as an example, I know that there are projects proceeding under our plans for Cairns, for Cape York, for Normanton, for Burketown, for Townsville and for Rockhampton. They are regional Queensland, and they are getting the funding they need. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, I have also called you a number of times today, and your constant interjections are also disorderly. I'd ask you to stop. Forestry Industry 65 14:48 Senator 300706 Victoria BABET (—) (): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Watt. We've seen the unscientific decisions made by the Western Australian and Victorian state governments to shut down native forestry in their states. Australia is already a net timber importer, and, because we'll be producing less timber locally, from which countries are Australia going to source their timber floors, timber decks, timber furniture, wood to build houses, et cetera, especially since we're going to be importing so many more migrants? Do these countries practise sustainable forestry where at least one tree is planted for every tree harvested, as we currently do in Australia? Where's our wood going to come from? 14:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Babet, for the question. I've obviously been asked questions about forestry on a number of occasions by representatives of the Greens, but I welcome questions from other senators on this topic as well. Senator Babet, the question that you asked goes to what I've said before when I've been asked about this issue, which is that the Albanese government supports a sustainable forestry industry, we support the committees that rely on that industry, and the reality is that the calls from some to eliminate native forestry on a very short timetable would leave us open to exactly the problems that you're talking about. We are in a point in Australia where about 87 per cent of our timber and wood needs are met by plantation timber, and that number seems to be growing, so there are more and more uses for plantation timber. But the reality is that, as things currently stand, we do rely on Australian native forestry to produce a number of products, including some of the home furnishings and other high-grade products that you're talking about, Senator Babet. If we were to follow the calls of some to eliminate that industry very quickly, that would leave us open to the need for imports from other countries which do have, in general, lower environmental standards than Australia. So what we want to do as the federal government is work with the states and territories, with industries and with the community to ensure that we can meet our forestry and timber needs. That's exactly why, heading into the election, we made around $300 million of commitments to expand the forestry industry, modernise it, improve its efficiency, improve the skill base of its workers and actually plant more plantations. That's what we want to do: to develop that sustainable forestry industry that all Australians rely on, not to mention the regional committees in particular that depend upon it for their livelihoods and their local economies. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Thank you, Minister. The native forest workforce are obviously skilled forest firefighters, and they assist our firemen and firewomen in fighting bushfires. In the 2019-20 fires, 284 forest contractors used 190 harvesting machines to save rural properties and lives. Since we're shutting down the native-timber-harvesting industry in Victoria, what work, if any, is being done by you to help with the next fire season? 14:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Babet. Your question goes to one of the other reasons that we need to have a sustainable forestry industry, and that is the role that our foresters play in ensuring that forests are maintained in a way that reduces bushfire risk. That's, of course, a very real risk, as we enter this summer, in many parts of the country. The work that our foresters do to maintain those forests and preserve bushfire trails and all sort of other things in our forests is critical work to make sure that we prevent that bushfire risk. Again, if we were to proceed down the path that some are calling for in immediately locking up forests in a way that wouldn't allow for that kind of forest management activity, that would present a risk of increasing the risk of bushfires, something that we need to take seriously. That's why these matters are not simple matters. They don't work simply as the bumper sticker slogans that some are fond of using. We need to actually approach the issues carefully and in a considered manner, and that's what we're doing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Last year the current Prime Minister made an election commitment to protect the Tasmanian native forest industry. He said: I promise you that if I become Prime Minister, a Government I lead will not shut down the native forest industry in Tasmania. Why won't the government show the workers in Victoria the same support that they have given in Tasmania? Is it because Tasmania is the last Liberal state? Is that what's going on? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Babet, I know you've attempted to transform yourself into Inspector Clouseau by solving the mystery there, but I'm afraid to say that you're incorrect there. You are correct that the current Prime Minister did make a commitment to Tasmanian forestry workers and Tasmanian forestry communities heading into the election: that this government would not shut down Tasmania's forestry industry. I can't remember the exact terms of that commitment. I know that was a commitment that Senator Duniam welcomed, but more so the Tasmanian senators sitting on this side of the chamber, who very much appreciate the importance of the forestry industry to Tasmania. That's exactly why we are, as I said before, investing in our forestry industry, because we do want to see it continue. It's not going to remain exactly the same. As I say, there is an increase in plantation timber going on. But we're investing $300 million to modernise this industry, upskill its workers to be able to use the higher forms of technology that are coming online, build those plantation estates and continue to undertake native forestry. Workplace Relations 67 14:54 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Last year those opposite opposed the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill. They just saw the title and knew they were against it. How are secure jobs and better pay helping ease cost-of-living pressure and getting wages moving again? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Polley—someone I know is very interested in ensuring that Australians have secure jobs and better pay, along with every other senator over here. What a shame we couldn't find one senator over on that side of the chamber. Senator WATT 245759 No, you can't put up your hand for that one, Senator Cash. You're not about secure jobs and better pay. You're not about that. And Senator Cash, you'll be very pleased to know that the Albanese government has delivered today's ABS labour force figures, which show that the unemployment rate remained at historic lows of 3.7 per cent. Senator Gallagher ING How about that? Senator WATT 245759 How about that? That sounds like secure jobs to me, Senator Gallagher. And employment has actually increased by 55,000, exceeding all market expectations, and female employment has increased by 37½ thousand. So, well done to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher, and all others involved in delivering that. The Albanese government does know that a lot of people are doing it tough right now, and that's why we're doing everything we can to get wages moving: secure jobs, better pay. We were for both; you were for neither. It's why we supported an increase to the minimum wage not once but twice. It's why we supported decent pay for aged-care workers. And who can forget Senator Colbeck and others muddling their way through why they couldn't support a pay rise for aged-care workers? We remember that. And do you know who else remembers it? The aged-care workers. They remember the coalition not supporting a pay rise for some of the hardest-working people in our community. It's also why we passed our secure jobs, better pay legislation—that bit of legislation that, from the coalition's point of view, was doomed as soon as we came up with that name for the bill: secure jobs, better pay, two things the coalition is absolutely allergic to. We know that our legislation is getting wages moving again and improving conditions. We do know that Australians are doing it tough. We know we're going to have to keep working hard on this. But bypassing that legislation we're getting wages moving again and creating more jobs, which is exactly what we said we would do. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, a first supplementary? 14:57 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Despite wages increasing, not everyone is seeing wage growth flow through to them. Some employers are using loopholes to undercut workers' pay and conditions—no surprises there. Why do we want to close loopholes that allow people to be underpaid? And how is the Albanese Labor government acting to close these loopholes? Opposition senators interjecting— 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Polley. Now, I don't know about you, Senator Polley, but I find it pretty appalling that while you were talking about loopholes that are leading to workers losing pay we had Senator Ruston, Senator Cash and a number of others over there laughing about that. I don't think it's a laughing matter that workers get ripped off through loopholes left in your legislation. I don't think that's very funny. I think that's a serious matter, and I think it's something that should be rectified. So, perhaps you'd like to reconsider your position on that. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Senator WATT 245759 I understand why the opposition is embarrassed every time their refusal to close those loopholes is pointed out. I'm sure you'd agree that nobody is missing out more than those who are having their wages stolen. Currently, if a worker steals from an employer, it's a crime—as it should be—but if an employer deliberately steals from their worker, in most places in Australia it is not a crime. That is backward, ridiculous logic that is being endorsed by the coalition in their refusal to help us pass this legislation. There's never a good time for a pay rise if you're a coalition senator; there is if you're a Labor senator. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, a second supplementary? 14:58 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania We know that workers should never have to choose between their safety and their pay. How have the government's actions to close the loopholes been informed by the lessons of the past? Workers in this country know that they can rely on us. Those on that side—there are no surprises as to how they act when they're in government. Opposition senators interjecting— 14:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Polley—and again we hear laughter from the other side, when you ask about workers choosing between their safety and their pay. Well, there are nine quarters in the history of the wage price index where wages increased by less than two per cent. Guess who was in government on every single one of those nine occasions? That's right: it was the coalition. The coalition was in power for all of those nine quarters when we saw wages increase by less than two per cent I guess that's because they were for once telling the truth when they admitted that low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economic strategy. They delivered. Congratulations! You delivered the low wages that you said you were dedicated to—nine quarters. We know that those opposite don't stand up for workers, we know that low wage growth is a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture and we know that the previous Liberal and National government did nothing to stop the wage theft epidemic, despite dozens of underpayment scandals on their watch. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. STATEMENTS 68 STATEMENTS Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 68

Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023

15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to make a very short statement, less than 30 seconds. Leave granted. Senator WONG 00AOU I would just indicate—I anticipated getting a question from the opposition but did not, so I was not able to put this on the public record—that the Acting Prime Minister in the other house has indicated that the government and opposition have met in relation to amendments to the bill that is currently before the chamber. I would indicate that there are six amendments and that the government have indicated that we agree in principle and are working with the opposition to establish the precise amendments that will be put here. The basis on which this is being done is that this bill must be resolved immediately, and the intention is to request that the Senate pass the bill this afternoon. I thought it would be useful to put that on the record in the chamber at question time. I thank the Senate. 15:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I acknowledge the statement by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the opposition have made clear all day, it is our desire to see this bill passed and for it to pass today. We also made clear that it was our expectation that amendments would have to be considered. I note that the government blocked consideration of any amendments in the House of Representatives. Thankfully, the Senate is at least a place where such amendments can be put. The opposition, despite having only seen this bill at seven this morning, when we were first briefed, have worked quickly. It is remarkable that the government, thankfully, is willing to engage in this discussion and to support the opposition's amendments, which we welcome, and we will work constructively to see the bill's passage, as we committed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 68 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Protest Activity 68 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I wish to add to answers given in my capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister on Tuesday. In response to a question from Senator Fawcett on Tuesday on whether the Prime Minister had spoken with representatives of the Australian Jewish community since the threatening events that occurred in Melbourne and Sydney over the weekend, the answer is yes. STATEMENTS 68 STATEMENTS Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 68

Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023

15:02 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I was on my feet seeking leave to make a statement before Senator Wong jumped up and moved on to a different topic, so I would seek leave now to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Well, what an absolute disgrace, both sides here. We've had debate all morning over how this particular bill that was rammed through the House could be managed, and now we see collusion between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, cuddling up to ram through amendments that this Senate still hasn't even seen. It hasn't even seen those amendments. When Senator Birmingham and Senator Wong want to come in here and pretend that there is a working relationship—you've left out a big chunk of this chamber. The crossbench has not seen these amendments. The crossbench has not been briefed on them. But what we do know is that this government and the opposition are going to do everything they can to circumvent the High Court and reinstate mandatory minimum sentences, which we know are terrible, which we know are out of order when it comes to the rule of law and which we know are antidemocratic. And now here we see this government wants to work with the opposition— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hanson-Young, please, there's a point of order. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U to ram through this bill without notice. The DEPUTY 10000 Point of order, Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU This is really taking advantage of leave being given. Senator Hanson-Young I0U You haven't come and spoken to us. Senator Wong 00AOU That's fine, but there's a committee stage. Both of us held— Senator Hanson-Young I0U We don't know that. Senator Wong 00AOU Can I finish? This is really taking advantage of the chamber. The short statement has been given— Senator Hanson-Young I0U I sought leave and it was given. Senator Wong 00AOU Not for that—we grant leave for one more minute. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I know it is inconvenient for the government that there are other voices in this place, but we exist. We exist and we are part of this process. It always suits you, doesn't it, when you get to cuddle up with the opposition, with Peter Dutton holding the whip here. Peter Dutton is the one who is whipping this government into the exact path he wants. This is all under the whip of Peter Dutton, the leader of the nasty party. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Birmingham, were you seeking the call? Senator Birmingham H6X Deputy President, I was looking to you to refer the senator to refer to members by an appropriate title or term. I would also note that an imputation has now been made against Mr Dutton, and that should be withdrawn. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I ask you to withdraw any imputation that you made, Senator Hanson-Young, for the benefit of the chamber. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I withdraw. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 69 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Infrastructure 69 15:05 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKenzie today relating to infrastructure. In May last year, just 17 months ago, the Australian Labor Party, while working very hard to attain office, said that it would stand up for Western Australia. And it didn't just say that. Around Perth suburbs, there were corflutes and signs. That commitment to stand up for WA was plastered across Perth's northern and southern suburbs. Tracey Roberts, the Labor candidate for Pearce, said that she would stand up for WA. Anne Aly, the Labor Party candidate for Cowan, said that she would stand up for WA. Tania Lawrence, the Labor Party candidate for Hasluck, said that she would stand up for WA. Well, guess what we've heard today? In a decision by Minister King, the Labor government's infrastructure minister, we have heard further news that Labor will cut important road infrastructure spending from Western Australia. Just think about this for a moment—this is in addition to the $639 million that was previously cut in the October budget, the first Labor budget. So, rather than standing up for WA like Labor said they would, in just 17 months they have made a high priority of cutting infrastructure spending in Western Australia, and in today's announcement they have decided to cut important road projects that are critical to the mining industry in our state and critical to agricultural producers in the Great Southern region of Western Australia. And remember this—this is just another example of Labor's commitment not to WA but to breaking its election promises. On two occasions now, Labor has consciously chosen not to stand up for Western Australia and has chosen to cut infrastructure spending. Let me remind you that, in the $639 million that was cut last year, they cut upgrades to Kwinana Freeway, Mitchell Freeway, Reid Highway, Great Northern Highway and the Tonkin Highway extension. They cut upgrades to the Great Northern Highway between Broome and Kununurra. Anyone who understands that part of the world knows that those single-lane roads are hugely dangerous, and they're the only way to travel across the far north of our state in times of natural disaster. In addition to that, they cut the Tanami Road project, which is important to me, and many other projects. Today we heard news that they were cutting the future road and rail connection project in Perth, the Great Southern Secondary Freight Network, the Marble Bar Road project and stages 1 and 2 of the Pinjarra Heavy Haulage Deviation project. Labor knows no end. There is no end in sight to Labor's commitment to breaking promises. And the broken promises in regard to WA infrastructure spending come on the back of Labor's commitment to make life cheaper for Australian families. That has not happened. They come on the back of Labor's promise to change Australia for the better. There is no way anyone in our country can argue honestly that things have got better in the first 17 months of this Labor government. Things have got considerably worse, and they've got worse for working families. Labor said that life would be cheaper under them, and it has only got more and more expensive. It's not just us saying that anymore; international commentators, the Economist magazine, others, are saying that living standards in Australia are now dropping. Western Australians deserve better from this Labor government. There is no end in sight to Labor's commitment to breaking promises, whether it's on infrastructure spending, economic performance or other things. Labor must do better, because Tracey Roberts, Tania Lawrence and Anne Aly said they would do better and they would look after WA families, and they have not. 15:11 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales What an opportunity to correct the record. I know that Senator Smith is passionate about his state of Western Australia, but he served in a government that went out and, as a matter of routine, went into communities and promised that it was going to deliver infrastructure. The minute they put it in a press release and sent it out into the community, it was as if money to do that project just magicked out of nowhere. When you are a responsible government, as the Albanese government is, you don't make a commitment to deliver a piece of infrastructure if you can't pay for it. Families know. You might want to go out for dinner, but you don't go into a restaurant and order something that you can't pay for. But that's what that government did, under Mr Morrison, in particular. They made it an art form. I use the term 'art form', with plenty of colour and movement. They were so dedicated to creating a pretence across the country that they were going to fund every single good idea that came forward and they could say yes to everything, but the reality is: ordinary Australians understand, as this government understands, that, when you make a commitment to fund something, you have to have the money to do the job. I really want to make sure we get on the record in support of my colleagues who are passionate advocates for the great communities that they represent in Western Australia. Tracey Roberts, Tania Lawrence and Anne Aly are my colleagues from the Labor Party from Western Australia. Let's be clear that it is a Labor Party government, under Mr Albanese, that is going to deliver additional funding to actually do really critical projects that were committed to by the previous government that would not go ahead if the money were not allocated. So irresponsible were the former government that they didn't have the money to do the job. I can give assurance to the people of Western Australia that the Albanese Labor government is providing additional funding to critical projects. METRONET will get an additional $1 million. The Perth Greater CBD Transport Plan, which is the Swan River bridge, will get an additional $20 million. The Karratha to Tom Price Corridor Upgrade, vital for the northern part of Western Australia, will get $11 million. The Mandurah Estuary Bridge Duplication will get $13 million. The Thomas Road and Nicholson Road project will get $5 million, and the Thomas Road upgrade as well. These projects were so badly budgeted for that they were at risk of not being completed. But we've made sure that they will be completed, and it's the advocacy of those great champions of their local communities Tracey Roberts, Tania Lawrence and Anne Aly that is making sure that their constituents are heard in this place. One of the misrepresentations that the opposition are trying to get on the record today is that somehow there's been a cut to the $120 billion of investment in infrastructure that was on the record. Let's be very clear: there were no cuts. A hundred and twenty billion dollars of investment in Australia remains $120 billion of investment in Australia. Now, to actually deliver what you promise rather than just make an announcement, you have to have a funding program and a work program that is fit for purpose. We know that the independent review found that the infrastructure investment program designed by those opposite simply couldn't be delivered. We're not only going to invest in a number of projects in the states and territories where such bad management by those opposite has led to funding cost overruns; we're going to confirm really clearly our commitment to a range of existing projects. At 10 am today, that is exactly what Minister King did. So there's clarity for the sector, for those governments that are going to engage in delivering this, for the prime companies that are going to invest in this and for all the people— (Time expired) 15:16 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Here we are talking about infrastructure. There's lots of debate about this project or that project. I get that this government is in. It is this government's call on what they want to build. If they want to spend $200 billion building a statue of me, I get it! It's a good thing to do in their eyes, but they don't. But this mistruth that that these projects and this government—they've cut 50 projects from what they want to do. That's their call. But it's not the fault of this side when it was in government. It is a decision by the people over there. It is the decision of this government to do their things. They are in control. They could have built them all. They could have put more money in. They chose not to. We hear that there are no cuts and there is $120 billion still there. When they got in, they decided to have a 90-day review. Yesterday or today is the 200th day of that 90-day review, and many of these projects have been pushed off into the never-never, saying: 'Here is a bundle of funds. States, you decide what you want to do.' They've hit the snooze button on decisions for some of these. 'We won't get out of bed. We won't make a decision. We won't go and do anything. We'll just rest a little bit longer on this.' That has the effect of a real cut. When you're talking about $120 billion last year, when this started, and cost-of-living growth of seven to 7½ per cent and construction cost increases of between 10 and 20 per cent, you're talking about $12 billion to $24 billion worth of extra money needed just to keep up. That's not there anymore, so in real terms that's a cut. I don't know about anyone else, but for me the odd $10 billion here and $20 billion there soon adds up to real money, I would have thought, but they're pretending it's a problem of this side. A full year of twiddling thumbs and wondering what to do means people will suffer and people will not get their deliveries. And they pushed this on the states. It's almost like another question that was asked today, about the farmers and the cost-of-living reduction. 'Yes, we're making farmers pay for the cost of living.' Government is not helping out. 'We're making small business pay for cost-of-living reductions.' Here they're making states pay for the infrastructure. And what are the effects? I went through the list briefly; it's a long list. We have the Bruxner Highway at Goonellabah. A review found that that area has eight times the serious or fatal accidents as roads of similar nature, and it is cut. Eight times the risk as roads of similar nature, and that's not worth funding. It is a regional thing. We go to the regions and we cut from the regions again and again. With Inland Rail, this great thing that's going to be productive for Australia—productivity is what we need—we cut the inland port at Narrabri, which will stop them getting their goods, their crops, their products. They're trying to build a manufacturing hub around the gas plant up there, but that won't do any good now, because they won't have an inland port to ship their goods. So what happens to them? They suffer. This is what we're really talking about here: productivity slashes to things that make Australia better. When they say, 'We have to cut funding,' cut the recurrent or ongoing funding that doesn't build productivity, that doesn't build safety, that doesn't add to us as a nation. That's what we should be doing, not cutting projects that make Australia better—and that is what they are doing. What have they done for other places? In my patch of the world there are great big billboards either side of the Hexham bypass. Anyone going north on holidays on the M1 freeway sees the local member for Paterson and 'M1 delivered by this Labor government'. It needs an asterisk with 'no, not anymore'. I'll have to buy a little billboard under it, if the state government agrees. Labor have bundled that project with the Coffs Harbour bypass and so many other projects on that road and said, 'Here is a pool of money if you want to do it, State Government.' The state asks, 'Is that enough money to do it?' and they say: 'We don't care. That's all you've got.' So there are more question marks going forward. The government had many options. They could have been honest and just said, 'We're cutting that,' and faced the consequences of it. But they can't deliver bad news, can't deliver the truth, because they want to put everything onto us over here. If I'd had two budgets I'd be saying, 'It is my responsibility,' but that doesn't happen in this place. It is all too hard, it is all the other side's fault, and there are all these other reasons that don't stack up to scrutiny. When you get down into the document it's easy to see what's going on, because it clearly says, 'The following projects will be built as planned.' It's very clear and unambiguous. We know that stuff is going ahead. But then there are tens of billions of dollars under headings that say, 'The following planning projects will continue as planned,' and, 'The following projects will proceed through planning, with remaining funding reserved for construction.' That means there is no certainty. They've cut 50, but there are 250 that are not under 'These things we'll build as planned.' Australia deserves better, Australia deserves certainty, and regional Australia certainly deserves better. 15:21 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Strategic, integrated, sustainable and affordable—four great words that underpin where we are going with this issue. There's a furore on the other side about this review, a review required because Liberal-National governments over nine long years did not manage this program appropriately, did not make appropriate decisions about which projects should go ahead and which should not. They did not make appropriate decisions about what the funding was going to look like, what the supply chains were going to look like or what the outcome was going to be for the states and communities who'd had those projects allocated to them. What we ended up with was a complete blowout and a whole bunch of projects that could not be delivered. So you can jump up and down as much as you like. This is the sensible thing to do. This is about having sustainable projects that are genuinely going to improve the lives of Australians done appropriately and in time frames that are realistic, not with the ridiculous delays we've seen with some of the commitments made by those opposite. Senator Cadell, I completely agree with you: we are responsible now. But we did not make a lot of those commitments and we did not undertake a lot of those negotiations. The states and territories are now front and centre of negotiations about priorities in their states and territories, unlike what was happening previously. We will not see any more car park rorts—and I'm afraid, Senator Cadell, we won't be seeing a statue of you either, although I might make a little plasticine one in a hearing one day just to keep us all entertained—but what we will see is enhanced productivity, with projects that are genuinely going to make a difference to people in our communities. We will see reduced congestion, improved productivity and a strengthening of our supply chains, because that's what we are committed to as a Labor government. The Albanese Labor government has reviewed those projects and has been transparent. We have declared everything that has been found and have been very clear about what will progress and what will not. We will not be progressing any half-thought-through projects, which is why the list has changed. I would like to reassure the people in my duty electorate of Grey that nothing has been dropped. The Augusta Highway duplication is going ahead, the APY Lands main access road upgrade is going ahead, the Eyre Peninsula road network upgrade is going ahead, the nationwide freight highway upgrade program is going ahead, the Port Augusta to Perth corridor upgrade is going ahead, the Horrocks Highway corridor package is going ahead, sealing of the Strzelecki Track is going ahead and the roads upgrade pilot project is going ahead—just to be clear. And there has also been money put into an additional support for the state government as requested by the state government on the north-south corridor, the Torrens to Darlington, of $2.7 billion. That is about working with the states to get the outcomes that we need to get to improve the lives of Australians, to go forth and do projects that are actually going to make a difference, that aren't going to put us in a situation where we are wasting money and throwing money away. We had cost blowouts. Was it $33 billion? That's a lot of money to not be able to add up. That's a lot of money to not really be able to understand what you're doing on the ground. So this review and their announcement today clears up that mass, cleans up that poor management of this program and actually looks to the future—a future in collaboration with the states, the future to improve facilities and structures for Australians in our communities and across this country. 15:26 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I note that we had a New South Wales senator, Senator O'Neill, in here speaking earlier. She responded to Senator Smith taking note of this question and answer. Not at any stage did Senator O'Neill mention that New South Wales is actually the recipient of the greatest number of cuts to projects. All she wanted to talk about was what was happening in WA, which is, of course, regional cuts—disgracefully behaviour that is putting regional populations, in particular, at risk. But I noticed that she didn't mention what was happening to her home state of New South Wales, which has seen the greatest number of cuts. Again, this feeds into the complete narrative that this Labor government doesn't understand how economics work. They're talking about cutting spending, but what they're also doing by taking some of these projects off the table and removing funding for them is actually reducing productivity. Productivity is the one thing that will actually help reduce inflation and help get this economy moving and help reduce cost-of-living pressures. Real wages are declining at the moment—when we talk about wages, we put that word 'real' in front of it. How we reverse that trend is by boosting our productivity. What we see here are cuts being made to infrastructure that was specifically designed to boost productivity. If you go into the regions where these freight trails were, it was important for the Commonwealth to invest more than the states because they went through regional centres. One that will be cut is actually in my old hometown of Moree. They are going to lose improvements to the Gwydir Highway, a very, very busy highway that sees a lot of freight and trucks. It also sees combine harvesters, particularly around this time of year, going up and down the highway as they move from property to property. It is also cotton territory, so we see big cotton harvesters out there. That funding is going, so we're going to put those lives at risk. We also know that the intermodal terminal in Moree will no longer be funded. We just heard from Senator Grogan about the car park rorts. I did note what was interesting: the one in Campbelltown is actually getting a boost in funding, so obviously not all of them are rorts, because this government is actually giving a boost in funding to the one in Campbelltown. I guess that's a good thing, because, when you look at the volume of projects that are going to be cancelled throughout south-west Sydney and Western Sydney, the congestion around these areas is going to be considerably worse. One of the areas that we're going to see a cut—and, again, I'm going to quote Senator Grogan—are projects that were 'half thought through', including the M7-M12 Integration Project. Transport New South Wales, which is obviously now under a Labor government, said: The M7-M12 Integration project will support future development growth in Western Sydney by improving travel times and congestion. Once complete, the project will provide direct access to commercial and residential hubs, and the new Western Sydney International Airport. Apparently, a half thought through project is one that opens up Western Sydney, one of the fastest growing areas in the nation! At a time when we're facing a cost-of-living crisis coupled with a housing crisis, those opposite, in another little brainwave that they've had, are going to remove construction and funding from a road that is deliberately being built to open up Western Sydney, improve access and ensure that the people who live in Western Sydney can work in Western Sydney. We understand here that, when we put these infrastructure projects in and housing and commercial enterprises go together, it actually forms a community, without people in Penrith having to travel to the Sydney CBD every day to get a job and go to work, because the Penrith CBD is booming and people are able to work closer to home. We're also going to see a cut to the Werrington arterial stage. This is another project that was going to boost economic participation and connection between the Great Western Highway, Werrington and Marsden Park. This is in north-west Sydney, another booming area to which we are seeing young families move, and we want them to be able to work there. We want those areas to grow and thrive so they turn into communities and people can spend less time in their cars commuting and more time with their families and loved ones. We have family-friendly hours in this place. What a joke. But that's how they are. That's how they operate. Being family friendly obviously doesn't come into it when they are taking away the opportunities for families to live, work and have infrastructure around them to make their lives get better. Question agreed to. First Nations Australians: Cultural Heritage 73 15:31 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given today by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today, relating to First Nations cultural heritage. It feels like groundhog day in this chamber when we're talking about the protection of Aboriginal or First Nations cultural heritage yet again in this place. It's like Juukan 2.0 as we look across the country and we look at the sacred sites and the places which hold 65,000 years of history for First Nations people in this country, the First Peoples of this country, from Murujuga, where the oldest example of an image of a human face is there in the petroglyphs, visible to everybody—in fact, it's known as 'our cathedral' for the Murujuga people on the Burrup peninsula in my home state of Western Australia—to the Tiwi Islands, with ancient burial grounds and sacred places that were there before the ice age, before the seas rose. This is one of the first places of human contact. We're now looking at the destruction of petroglyphs in Middle Arm in Darwin harbour. As to the Beetaloo, this morning I was on my feet in this chamber talking about the Roper River in the Northern Territory. Frankly, the behaviour that we've seen—when my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson, who is here, was on his feet most of last week, along with my other colleague Senator Hanson-Young and others in this bloc, talking about the sea dumping bill and about the projects that would benefit from CCS—was absolutely disgraceful behaviour from some of the industry companies like Woodside and Santos. First we had Meg O'Neill come out and talk about how this was going to put investment off and people weren't going to want to invest in our projects here in Australia. There was then the intimidation yesterday by Kevin Gallagher from Santos at the Energy Club in my home state of WA, in Perth. He was talking about the shrill of politicians and the voice of politicians from upmarket and expensive suburbs. I don't come from any of them. The place where I live in Perth is one of the lowest socioeconomic regions in the country, in fact. So I find it quite astounding that people think that we stand in this place representing just pockets. I represent nearly one-third of the country in my electorate, which is one of the largest electorates and has a most diverse population. Yet it is so rich in resources. But, when you look at the skyline of Boorloo, or Perth, you know who owns the place. You only need to look at the high-rises with all of the big names, from Rio Tinto to BHP to Santos to Woodside. They're all there. These companies continue to bully, intimidate and stand over some of the traditional owners, and they get their own way. That's because some of that is actually at the expense of traditional owners, who don't have a bag of cash lying around so they can go in and challenge people. They don't have private lawyers like some people in this place who can go and just get legal advice. That's why the Environmental Defenders Office exists. It exists because the legislative loopholes still exist. They are not recognised as relevant people. The word 'consultation' isn't about free, prior and informed consent. Yet we've got ministers in this place standing on their feet in question time talking about how they take this very seriously and absolutely respect Aboriginal cultural heritage in this country. If you did, you would pass those amendments in my private senator's bill and close those legislative loopholes so we can get on with the business in this country. I find it hard to believe that again we're talking about Juukan Gorge. All those recommendations were accepted by this government except one, recommendation 1, and I know because I served on that committee. This government, including ministers from the other place, continues to bat it around left, right and centre: 'Here, have a kick.' That's what they're doing. They're kicking it around like a political football over there, and all the while our Aboriginal cultural heritage is being destroyed on their watch, because they fail to put the standalone legislation in place. Minister Wong can say they're not a party to the court proceedings, but they in fact were. I sat behind the Santos lawyers and listened to the Solicitor-General give them advice. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 74 Report 74 15:36 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the report of the committee on supporting democracy in our region. Human Rights Joint Committee 74 Report 74 15:36 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report: report 12 of 2023. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 74 Report 74 15:36 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's Advisory report—Counter‑Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023. 15:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I will just make a few brief comments on the report. The coalition members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security tendered additional comments on the prohibited hate symbols bill that was tabled in the parliament. In fact, the deputy chair of the PJCIS, Andrew Wallace MP, had to make the point that the five coalition members supported the intent of the recommendations of the report but that he and the other four coalition members felt compelled to call out the committee's report on the basis that it failed to recommend the banning of the Nazi salute. In making my comments, I would say that it beggars belief that the government members would not support the banning of the Nazi salute, particularly in this current period of time. The Nazi salute, as we all know, has a direct linkage to the criminal regime which was responsible for the deaths of more than six million Jews during World War II. For those who have seen the recent sickening scenes in our own backyard here in Australia, this was obviously very disappointing. These scenes demonstrate that we aren't immune from hate and antisemitism here in our own country. As far as I and the coalition members for the committee are concerned—I had previously moved a bill in this place in relation to the banning of certain symbols—it's our position that there is no place for symbols and gestures that represent hate in this country, and no-one in our communities should be living in fear. In terms of an issue that was raised on whether or not there is a constitutional prohibition on legislating against the Nazi salute—and I don't believe the government has provided any justifiable reason for not doing so—I would say that there is no legal justification for banning Nazi symbols but not Nazi gestures such as the Nazi salute. This is the irony of the report that has been provided. Certainly under the external affairs power of the Constitution the Commonwealth has the power to pass laws to implement its treaty obligations. They would include three particular instances: the eradication of incitement of racial discrimination, which is article 4 of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the outlawing of vilification of persons on national, racial or religious grounds, which is article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the prohibition of discrimination, which is article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The irony of the fact that the government hasn't gone down the path of actually recommending what the coalition members themselves recommended is that when you look at the government's bill and its own explanatory memorandum they expressly set out that the bill does in fact meet those treaty obligations. As I said, when you look at this period of time in terms of where we are, both here in Australia and also globally, there is no doubt that we are currently living in one of the most challenging and uncertain periods since the Second World War. In fact, the world, as we know, has watched with horror Ukraine being invaded by Russia, and there were also the unprovoked attacks on Israel by the Hamas terrorists on 7 October this year. Those barbaric attacks—and we're still seeing them, unfortunately, on our social media and TV screens—resulted in 1,200 deaths, and that was the greatest loss of life of Jews in one single day since the Holocaust. Again, it has well and truly heightened our awareness of this type of evil. Sadly, what we're seeing displayed, even here in Australia—which I find so disappointing—is a significant increase in antisemitism across the globe and, disappointingly, here in Australia. Additional comments that have been provided by the coalition senators, in particular the deputy chair of the PJCIS, Andrew Wallace MP, expressly state that there is no more important time for the parliament of Australia and the Australian government to stand with the people of Israel and ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, all forms of Nazi symbolism, including the Nazi salute, be prohibited by the bill. Again, it's a lost opportunity but also a great shame that the government has decided not to proceed down this path. Certainly I commend the coalition members on their recommendation 'that the bill expressly prohibit the giving of the Nazi salute'. As I said, I believe it is a lost opportunity by the government in not recommending that particular part of the bill and the banning of the Nazi salute. 15:43 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I too rise to take note of the important matters Senator Cash referred to in relation to the PJCIS report. At the outset, I commend my good friend Julian Leeser MP for his introduction of a private member's bill earlier in the year which came before my committee, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which would have prohibited both Nazi symbols and Nazi gestures. In my dissenting report, which recommended that that bill be passed as soon as possible, I noted—and I want to place on the record in this context evidence that was provided by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and emphasise the missed opportunity by the government to include both Nazi gestures and Nazi symbols. This is what the Executive Council of Australian Jewry said, and this was before the attacks of 7 October, the greatest loss of Jewish lives in a single day since the Holocaust: … the public display of Nazi symbols and gestures goes well beyond the realm of ideas and freedom of expression. Such displays are, and are usually intended to be, acts of menace and intimidation. They convey hatred for individuals and groups and for the values of personal freedom, justice and democracy of our entire society. Placing Nazi signs … or performing Nazi salutes on or in the vicinity of a synagogue, mosque or temple or a Holocaust museum is not an expression of an idea, but a naked threat and a promotion of hatred and violence. I understand the concerns that were raised around enforceability. It was something which we considered as a committee. However, in all the circumstances, I do not understand why—with an appropriate review mechanism and with all the checks and balances that the Senate can provide—the government took the position, at this of all times, not to attempt to address the evil, the menace and the intended intimidation that the display of a Nazi gesture has. I think it's something we should all reflect upon and consider when the legislation is further considered by the Senate—whether or not the scope of the legislation should be expanded to include the making of the Nazi gesture. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 75 Report 75 15:47 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to speak about the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on their inquiry into supporting democracy in our region. In discussing Australia's role in supporting democracy in the region, we have to discuss supporting the freedom and human rights of people who are living in occupied territories, where people are denied the right to self-determination, which is a basic cornerstone of democratic society. Right now, obviously, the world is watching the war in Gaza, which has its roots in the illegal occupation of Palestine and the unjust oppression of Palestinian people. But Palestine, sadly, is not the only state in the world that's occupied, with its people suppressed, and Israel is not the only oppressor. In our region, West Papua has been occupied by Indonesia since 1969. The West Papuan national day is 1 December, when the level of oppression and lack of democracy for the West Papuan people will be highlighted by the fact that the raising of the Morning Star flag is illegal in West Papua. Indonesia is described as a democracy in the committee report, and yet its democracy doesn't go as far as supporting self-determination for the peoples of occupied West Papua. The report is very strangely very light on in its discussion on the influence of China on democracy in our region. The report notes that China is an authoritarian state and that there's concern about the creeping influence of China on media freedom in the Pacific. If we are to be serious about supporting democracy in our region then we have to engage with the broader impact of China, an authoritarian state in our broader region. Specifically, I want to go this afternoon to the lack of democracy within occupied parts of what China claims as its territory—namely, Tibet. Today, the Australian all-party parliamentary group on Tibet had the honour of meeting Kalon Norzin Dolma. Kalon Dolma is the Minister for the Department of Information and International Relations in the Central Tibetan Administration, which is the Tibetan parliament in exile. It runs as a democratic government for Tibetans in exile all around the world. I want to thank Norzin for coming to Australia and for speaking with us about the existential threat that Tibet faces under China's occupation. Since the occupation of Tibet and the flight of the Dalai Lama into exile in 1959, it's estimated that over a million Tibetans have been killed. With the Chinese government's policy of resettlement of Chinese people to Tibet, Tibetans have become a minority in their own country. Over the last 60 years, the people of Tibet have endured an attack on not only their people but their culture, their expression and their freedom too. They have endured it in a non-violent way. I think, as the world looks at the horrific war in Gaza, it's up to us to remember and think about what's going on in Tibet. There is no war going on in Tibet because of the Tibetans' commitment to nonviolence. But the world needs to pay as much attention to what is going on in Tibet as we do to what is going on in the unjust occupation of Palestine and in other states. In our meeting with Norzin, she urged the Australian government to raise the plight of Tibet in China's upcoming universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council. The last review conducted by the UN Human Rights Council was in 2018. At that time, Australia raised specific recommendations on Tibet, including recommending that China cease restrictions, including military and police measures, on Uighurs' and Tibetans' freedom of movement and allow access to Tibet and Xinjiang, or Eastern Turkestan, by human rights observers. These things have not occurred. Since that time, we've seen further crackdowns, with Tibetan children being forced to attend Chinese-language boarding schools and non-voluntary labour transfer and vocational training programs. When we talk about supporting democracy, we have to be focused on what the impacts of that lack of democracy are in our region. One thing that we can do to support democracy is to apply whatever pressure we can to authoritarian states. In our relationship with China, we have to take every opportunity that we can to raise these huge attacks on people's human rights. The Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet has written to our foreign minister to urge the government to raise these issues in January in Australia's response to the next universal periodic review into China. I also urge the Australian government to oppose any effort by the Chinese government to interfere with the practices of Tibetan Buddhism and to raise these human rights violations directly with their counterparts at every level. The Australian Greens believe that universal human rights are fundamental and must be respected and protected in all countries and for all peoples. We cannot be selective about whose human rights we're going to stand up for. The Greens stand in solidarity with those living in occupied territories, in occupied Tibet, Palestine and West Papua, and with First Nations peoples living here in Australia. That's why we are calling on the government to do all they can to stop the Chinese government from suppressing the rights of the Tibetan people and to support self-determination for the peoples of West Papua. It's why we are demanding that we join the calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Human Rights Joint Committee 76 Report 76 15:53 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to take note of Human rights scrutiny report: report 12 of 2023 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. This report relates to regulations which pertain to the Migration Act and, more specifically, to the resolution of status visa. The section of the report that pertains to those matters does raise concerns about a number of issues. Again I have to say there is a pattern emerging here around migration, and we are seeing that pattern play out in this parliament today. The Migration Act amendments that are in Labor's anti-refugee bill, the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, are going to be jammed through this parliament perhaps as early as the middle of the evening tonight, because the Labor Party and the LNP are going to collude to make that happen. We are in that position because Mr Dutton has confected an emergency and, with the backing of the Murdoch media and some other media outlets who should know better, has put so much pressure on the Labor Party that the Labor Party has cravenly capitulated. That is what we know was happened this morning, but things have got a lot worse in the last hour. Now we are not just getting a bill that Labor has brought in because it is scared of Mr Dutton's politicisation and demonisation of refugees, but we know that the Labor government is going to accept six amendments from Mr Dutton, including an amendment that would ensure that a breach of the new draconian visa conditions would attract a mandatory minimum sentence. I want to remind colleagues that Labor's policy and election commitment said, 'Labor opposes mandatory sentencing.' That is what they committed to the Australian people when they went to the election. Now, because they are too scared of Mr Dutton's rampant politicisation of refugees and his demonisation of refugees, Labor are going to walk away from their election platform and support an amendment from Mr Dutton to impose mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment on refugees who breach draconian visa conditions. Make no mistake, what this bill is going to do is set people up to fail by imposing draconian conditions on their visas—curfews, electronic surveillance—and if someone inadvertently breaches those conditions maybe because they are a few minutes late to get home outside the curfew time, they are then going to be subject to mandatory minimum sentences because they breached their visa conditions. This is exactly what Mr Dutton has always wanted. Mr Dutton has always wanted the people the High Court effectively set free last week to be returned to detention. That is what he has always wanted, and the Labor Party is going to give it to him by supporting mandatory minimum sentences for breaches of visa conditions in direct contradiction to the policy Labor took to the last election. That is where we find ourselves today, and it is a dark and shameful day in the history of this parliament when the political duopoly in this place join together, as they have done time after time after time in the last two decades, to ride roughshod over the rights of refugees, to demonise refugees, to divide our community and to stoke fear and hatred of refugees in our community. It is an extremely sad day. In regard to the Migration Amendment Resolution of Status Visa Regulations, which are the subject of this report, I do need to be clear that the government still has not provided a satisfactory pathway for people who were denied natural justice and procedural fairness through the fast-track process. The fast-track process was unfair. It ran contrary to the principles of natural justice. It meant a lot of people did not get a reasonable opportunity to put their case. That was the fast-track process that was put in place by the former government. Labor, to its credit, has addressed these issues for some of the people who were affected, but not all of them. There are over 10,000 people who still do not have a satisfactory and fair pathway or a satisfactory and fair process for assessing their claims. Labor needs to act to make sure that that process is in fact created for those people. I met this week a group of women who walked hundreds of kilometres to come to this parliament. They were from Sri Lanka. They were from Iran. They walked here and they told me when I met them that they, who had been impacted by the fast-track process, believed they'd been denied natural justice and procedural fairness—and they were right. They had been denied those things, and it's time that justice was served. It's time that a process and a pathway is created for those women and for the thousands of others like them in Australia who had their claims denied by an unfair fast-track process created by people like Mr Dutton and Mr Morrison, and the onus is on the Labor Party to fix it. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 77 Report 77 16:01 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the final report of the committee on the capability and culture of the NDIA together with accompanying documents and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The NDIS joint standing committee is one that usually, as we work though issues, approaches our inquiries and what we're looking into in a reasonably bipartisan say—something that we always endeavour to do because we know that this is not only the largest part of the budgetary spend in the social services space and a program that is growing but also one that affects some very vulnerable people in our society. So it is important that we do try to work together as much as we possibly can. So, whilst there were 27 recommendations through the final report, there were a couple of them that I really was concerned about and felt fell well short, especially when the actual report was about the culture and the capability of the NDIS. Now, one of the issues that we were looking at was the financial sustainability, because, without financial sustainability, there is no scheme. We think it's important that, if you're saying you're going to improve the culture and you're going to improve the capabilities of an organisation, you want to make sure that there's some funding there for that to happen. And so we did feel that we needed to bring to the attention of those that might be interested in the report that this was not supported by all members of the committee. It was supported by the coalition and it was supported by the Greens that the financial sustainability reporting be part of the report, but it was not supported by members of the government that that should be something that we looked to. That is why—and I'm sure my colleague Senator Reynolds will speak to this more so when she makes her contribution. We know that it is disappointing for people that are participants in the scheme and their families. Because it is demand driven, there are only two ways that the government, as they've claimed, can start to bring inflation costs—the costs of the scheme growing—down so it will not grow by as much as it currently is. That is either by cutting the number of participants or cutting the value of their plans. Those are the only ways you do it. There's no other way. Because we cannot get the financial transparency that we need to be able to see where the scheme's heading, we don't know. Participants and their families don't know what conditions are going to be cut, what disabilities are going to be deemed not worthy of being assisted by the NDIS, how participants are going to get funded or how much they will get funded for. Will everyone just get a carte blanche cut, or will some more thoughtfulness go into it? We don't know, because no-one will present those figures. We held a very late hearing into a sexuality, sexual development and sexual expression part of the NDIS. Again, it had to be manoeuvred through, I would suggest, Senator Steele-John. We worked together to make sure that we had that part of it. I know everyone hears the word 'sex'—and we get a lot of headlines about how the NDIS is going broke because of sex workers. That's not what this was about. It is really important that this doesn't overshadow this report. One of the things that we learnt might actually shock people. All students receive sex education at some point in their schooling. In different years they receive information about sexuality but also about their body and puberty, who can touch them and who can touch them where, who they can touch and who they can touch where, and what's appropriate, what the societal norms are and what the expectations are. We learnt that a lot of children with disability are actually removed from those classes, so they are never taught any of these things that every other child is taught. I acknowledge that kids with an intellectual or cognitive disability quite often need to be taught things in a very different way because they have a very literal mind or they have a different way of understanding things. We know that there are a lot of young adults that enter the juvenile justice system and the justice system because they don't understand the behaviours that are appropriate, they don't understand what is acceptable and what society accepts as normal behaviour, and so they find themselves getting into trouble. And they get themselves into trouble not only as a perpetrator but also as a victim, because a lot of people with a disability, especially, again, those with cognitive and intellectual disabilities, are never taught about public versus private—what sort of behaviour is acceptable in public and what sort of behaviour is acceptable in private. But they're also not taught how to have autonomy over their own body. They don't understand what's appropriate behaviour and what's not. So, many of these people become victims of inappropriate sexual behaviour and have no framework in which to understand that. Puberty is another one, for all of us that are parents of teenagers. As of Sunday week, I will have three teenagers in my house; lucky me! Puberty for any kid is a pretty tricky time, but you throw in a disability and it can be a whole new level of complexity. I am going to tell this story. If you're an autism parent, we teach our kids to do things and then they start to generalise it. So, if you teach kids to wash their hands in the bathroom, they then generalise that to other bathrooms. They learn to do that in their bathroom at home, but they know that they can wash their hands in the bathroom at school or in a public restroom. So, with a teenage boy in the house, when you get to the quite sticky situation of masturbation, let me tell you, there are certain things we need to teach them. One of things that we teach children with autism, and children with intellectual and cognitive disabilities, is that those sorts of behaviours happen in the bedroom. You might wonder: why not the bathroom, or anywhere else, for that matter? It's because we do not want those children to generalise that that activity can occur in any bathroom. But sometimes children are not taught these things, and you can imagine how much trouble someone can get into who's 15 or 16 and generalises that activity to a bathroom at a train station perhaps on the way to school or on the way back. They're going to end up in a bit of a difficult situation. So one of the recommendations that we have made is that, when a teenager with a disability is doing their NDIS planning, there is some recognition of this, particularly during those years of puberty and sexual development, and that those children are given a framework—that there is an understanding that there will be a need for this, as unpleasant as people might find talking about it, and people might prefer not to think about it. As I said, as the mother of three teenagers, I'm kind of there with you! But I have to face facts because one of mine has autism, and you have to make sure that your child has the best possible opportunity to live a full life. That means that they participate fully but that they participate within societal norms and that they are acting in a societally acceptable way. So we have recommended that, particularly during puberty, there is a sexuality framework and that there is an understanding that there may need to be an increase to the plan. Usually this would be through behavioural supports. It might be through the use of a communication tool to help give a cognitive understanding of what this is all about. I don't want this to overshadow it. The recommendation from the inquiry we held into this issue was unbelievable. Anyone who wants to read it should go and read it. I'm not going to read it out to you, because it makes no sense at all. The government was clearly so uncomfortable, out of touch and unwilling to address this issue, which can be uncomfortable. It can be awkward. They were so unwilling even to acknowledge the challenges faced by these adolescents, particularly those with intellectual and cognitive disabilities, and the support that they and their families might need for what is a tricky enough time to navigate for any teenager, without the disability, but without any additional support. All that the government has supported through the main part of the report is recommendations from the disability royal commission which allude to this, talk about this and recognise that but provide absolutely no guidance of the agency at all. That is exactly our job to do, to decipher and pull these things apart to make sure that these sorts of services, behaviour programs and understanding are there. I will mention the information, linkages and capacity-building, ILC, programs, which are the third plank of the NDIS and which are there to allow community participation. Again, they sort of feeds into it. There are community groups and organisations that well suited to allowing people with disability to participate in certain activities without requiring additional support out of a participant's plan for one-on-one individualised supports. The ILC program and its grant process was moved into the Department of Social Services, outside of the agency. Coalition members have made a recommendation that it come back into the agency so that synergy between what the agency is doing and what those programs are setting out to achieve is something that is aimed for and working cohesively. Why that was controversial I have no idea, which is why the coalition felt the need, as did Senator Steele-John, to put that in as part of the report. 16:12 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia First of all, the Australian Greens would like to acknowledge and thank the disabled people and disabled-led organisations who have contributed to this important inquiry and also to thank the secretariat of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS who were, once again, superb in their support of the committee's work. This inquiry into the cultural capability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme covered significant topics that impact the lives of disabled people. It is, I have to say, deeply concerning that in some instances the NDIA has failed to fulfill its promises under the NDIS Act or Australia's international commitments. The Australian Greens, in submitting additional comments in relation to this report are pretty concerned to say and pretty disappointed to observe that the Australian government has failed to make recommendations on key areas that were asked of the committee by disabled people. One of those areas is in relation to guardianship and financial administration. It was deeply moving and at times quite infuriating to hear of the unjust experiences disabled people are subjected to while under guardianship or public trustee orders. It is clear that the NDIA could do better in its support of participants who are under guardianship and trustee orders. Of great concern to us is the number of NDIS participants who are subject to guardianship and financial administration orders. Let's be really clear. The evidence we heard as a committee is that we now face a reality in Australia where the majority of Australians who are subject to financial trusteeship and public guardianship orders are either NDIS participants or disabled people. Yet the way in which guardianship and public trustee orders are regulated and monitored in Australia differs from state to state, often vastly disempowering disabled people as a result of their processes and practices. There is an urgent need for a nationally consistent approach to guardianship and financial trusteeship orders in Australia, one which enables people who are subject to these orders, some 50,000 Australians, to be able to retain their right to speak about their experience, and one which supports the right and role of journalists to report on that experience. The gag laws must end. They have no place in a modern-day Australian society. And those elements of legislation that so deeply entrench substitutive decision-making, which robs people of their agency and often violates their rights—these rules, procedures, pieces of legislation—must be replaced by structures that enable proper supported decision-making. The Australian Greens, in responding to this report of the joint standing committee, are making a commonsense recommendation, and that is that the issue of guardianship and public trustee orders and the arrangements subsequent to them be referred to the Standing Council of Attorneys-General to enable the Commonwealth to play a leadership role in the national standardisation of these processes. This is a commonsense recommendation which unfortunately was rejected by the government. Another recommendation that the Australian Greens have made in our additional comments is that the Information, Linkages and Capacity Building program, commonly known as ILC, be returned to the NDIA to manage. ILC is the critical third plank of the NDIS, designed and conceived to be a funding program to enable the provision of Commonwealth funding to specific programs of advocacy, support, capacity and linkage building, which would enable disabled people to connect with each other, to build our capacity to advocate and to navigate the systems we use. This program should always have remained within the NDIA's control to be coordinated with other NDIA policies and approaches. The previous government made the decision to remove ILC from within the management of the NDIA and to place it within DSS, with disastrous consequences. I do understand that who gets to sign the cheques of these programs and announce them in media releases is often a subject of internal political debate. Ministers do like to be able to announce things. But this should not come at the expense of disabled people and the advocacy and information programs we need. ILC needs to go back within the NDIS, and I'm proud to make that recommendation in the committee, alongside a recommendation that calls on the government to make clear that all automated algorithmic practices, so far as they exist within the NDIS, be ceased. We cannot see—we must not see—a repeat of robodebt within our NDIS. We must do these things as we ensure that there are properly coordinated programs and policy supports in place for women, non-binary people and the LGBTQIA+ community, and programs and policies that ensure the creation of an NDIS that works for First Nations people. Finally, I want to tackle the issue that we got to right at the end of the inquiry process, that being the need for a full and comprehensive sex and relationships and sexual expression policy within the NDIA. Let's be really clear; let's say something that often goes unsaid in this place: sex and sexuality—sexual expression—is a good thing, and it is a right to be celebrated, a right of all human beings. Whether you are a person who is proudly a member of the asexual community, whether you are a queer disabled person—wherever you occupy on the spectrum of sexual expression—the reality that as a human being sexual expression is a right must not be denied. As a legislative space invested with real power when it comes to shaping the supports and services and information accessible to the community, particularly to disabled people, we cannot let our community down by failing to engage in conversations which sometimes make some people in this place feel a bit weird. There is nothing odd about the sexuality of disabled people. There is nothing inherently taboo. They should be nothing inherently taboo about sex or sexuality ever. The reality is that disabled people are sexual beings. When it comes to the NDIS and the reasonable and necessary supports that may be considered to be provided to an NDIS participant, sex based supports should be the types of supports that are able to be applied for, in addition to educative services, in addition to supports. There shouldn't be limitations placed on disabled people's sexuality or sexual expression simply because ministers think that it might be too tough to talk about. That is not okay. What we need to do is have a fully formed and codesigned sexual expression policy within the NDIA so that planners making decisions have the information they need to engage with participants at different stages of their lives, depending on their goals, empowering and enabling them to have conversations and to navigate what supports would be necessary and reasonable in which situations. That information doesn't currently exist, leaving people to make judgements on a case-by-case basis. This is inappropriate. (Time expired) 16:21 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak on this NDIS report. The areas I want to focus on are the coalition comments, particularly in relation to the financial sustainability and transparency of the scheme. Financial sustainability and transparency light the heart of the future success of this world-first and incredibly life-transforming scheme. When in government, as the minister, I significantly increased the amount and regularity of NDIS data that was released publicly. Sadly, this transparency has been progressively eroded by the Albanese government, to the point where current actuarial data is no longer available on the future projections of the scheme beyond the next three years. There is a very clear reason for that, which I'll come to shortly. The government have made $74 billion worth of cuts to the NDIS program over the next 10 years, and they have now hidden any of the data publicly were participants, senators and the Australian public could have found out exactly where those cuts are coming from. To put it in context, the scheme in 2019 was just under $10½ billion. What the last quarterly report—which was thankfully released, albeit very late by the government—has now demonstrated is that the scheme is almost that in the first quarter of this year alone. Those $74 billion cuts apparently are going to come from a framework of initiatives that have yet to be implemented and a framework that does not yet exist. It is no wonder they are not revealing the data. Again to put the scheme in context, the last publicly available NDIA actuarial forecasts predicted the scheme will have more than one million participants by 2032 and cost Australian taxpayers close to $100 billion annually. This quantum of growth is not reflected in the latest federal Labor government's budget, hence why they haven't released this year's actuarial forecasts. The government continues to refuse to provide the detail on where these cuts are coming from. Instead, they're claiming—as I said—a yet-to-be-developed financial framework that will magically make $74 billion in savings without cutting either of the two drivers of the insurance costs to the scheme, the number of participants and the average cost per participant. Why is this important in relation to this report? Coalition members absolutely understand that, no matter how good the recommendations in this report might be, if you cannot fund them and you cannot even fund the scheme then, no matter what recommendations this place makes, they are pointless because they cannot be funded. Let's have a look at what we have gleaned from the reports they have made available. The quarterly report, which has just been released, has five key figures which combined demonstrates that this government cannot deliver those $74 billion worth of savings over the next 10 years without slashing participant numbers and slashing participant packages. They very cunningly hid that data until after the next election, but I can guarantee you they will not get away with a $74 billion fraud on Australians with serious and permanent disabilities. The quarterly reports says: Total Scheme expenses for the 3 months to 30 September 2023 were $10.1 billion … That is one per cent higher than the estimates in June this year. The second point is that in September, so this last quarter, total planned inflation for that single quarter was 5.5 per cent, which annualised is well over 15 per cent. Remember that 15 per cent because the government are trying to tell us that they are trying to cut the annual increase down to eight per cent when inflation went up in one quarter from 12 per cent to over 15 per cent. Somehow without cutting participant plans and cutting participant numbers they are magically going to reverse that trend. The third piece of interesting data is that participant numbers themselves are still increasing significantly and by three per cent in the last quarter alone when over 21,000 new participants joined the scheme. This quarterly increase is the equivalent to an annual increase to the scheme of 15 per cent. These numbers are still trending upwards when the government is telling us these mythical yet-to-be-identified measures are magically going to drop the scheme's growth. The fourth bit of interesting data they have tried to hide but cannot is that the average payment per participant during the last quarter was $63,600 per annum, or 1.3 per cent higher than the projections from the last budget alone. Participant numbers, average plan costs and the total budget amounts are all still trending upwards, and, significantly, there was no reduction in the average plan budgets of participants who were continuing in the scheme. In fact, that number was still trending upwards. You have a scheme that is still exploding in numbers and an insurance scheme where the two drivers of costs, participant numbers and the average cost per participant, are not and cannot be controlled by the federal government on behalf of the taxpayers. That is why in every quarter of every budget since 2019 those costs and numbers have been going up. No matter what committees in this place report, no matter what review Bill Shorten is hiding from this place and people with disabilities—the independent review that has taken of time a long time, which he has, the states have, but is not going to be released to us—and unless structural changes are made that mean the government of the day or board can control both drivers of cost, the scheme is not sustainable. This government is not actually offering a hand of bipartisanship, as we did to the current government and I did as minister over two years ago when I said, 'Let's work together to fix this to put it on a sustainable trajectory,' and that means it can't live within the budget the taxpayers give them. They are hiding actuarial data and putting to people with serious and permanent disability the completely false and cruel narrative that, while the scheme costs are going up, they can somehow cut $74 billion from the scheme over the next 10 years without cutting plans and participant numbers. It is probably the cruellest financial hoax of any government in living memory, and certainly we on this side will not let them get away with it. In finishing, I want to highlight that, while they suppressed the annual financial sustainability report, which is the actuarial data—it has been 239 previously, with probably well over a hundred tables—in their four-page actuarial report they had the Government Actuary's report for the annual report. The Government Actuary could not have been any more damning. They didn't even give the Government Actuary the full actuarial data, the projections over 10 years. He got the executive summary of the report and some draft Excel spreadsheets from the minister and the agency. He has clearly said he does not believe the numbers from the NDIS. He said he considers this risk to be greater in the middle term, which is exactly the data the government is now hiding from us. Remember, they have gone from giving us 10 years of actuarial forward data to giving us three. Guess what? That gets them through the next budget so they can maintain the fiction that they are not cutting the scheme by $74 billion. In fact, with the cost of the scheme still rising greater than was forecast—they were trying to get it down to eight per cent, and in the last quarter it has gone from 12 to 15 per cent—not only will it have to be $74 billion; they're going to have to rip out even more than that to bring it down to the eight per cent. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks, Senator Reynolds? Senator Reynolds 250216 I am, thank you. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 82 DOCUMENTS Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 82 16:33 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to take note of the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The royal commission has been doing some great work. I commend the commissioners and especially commend Commissioner Kaldas for his leadership. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the veterans and the families, especially the mothers, who fought for the royal commission over the three or four years leading up to it. And it was not just them; this fight went on for many, many years. It actually started with Vietnam veterans and then went on through the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association. There were a heap of fathers in there who had lost sons. I want to thank you all sincerely. You all played a big part in making sure we achieved the royal commission. I also want to thank the 6,000 Australians who made submissions, plus the hundreds of witnesses who have showed up so far—because there are more to come—to tell their stories. I can tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President, it has not been easy. It is painful and it can be triggering. These veterans and their families have had some of the roughest treatment imaginable, and that is despite them serving their country. The royal commission is hearing a truth—a truth that veterans and their families have known for decades. That's a remarkable achievement, given that the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Australian Government Solicitor and, of all people, the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force have done nothing but stonewall the royal commission all the way. Commissioner Kaldas called this 'stonewalling' in his own speech at the National Press Club and, quite frankly, all four of you that I just read out are still not acknowledging your stonewalling and your behaviour. I'll be totally, brutally honest with you: the culture has not changed. That the sad state of facts here today. The culture has not changed. The senior brass still doesn't want to know the truth and doesn't want it to come out. I can tell you that, if the Minister for Defence were paying any attention, the CDF would have gone a long time ago. Let's be brutally honest about that. We've got retention issues in there because of the leadership. But, oh no, not Minister Marles. He's still saying: 'I don't want to know about this. I don't want to address these issues.' You could be showing some leadership right now, Minister Marles, and starting to clear the decks, but you don't want to do that. I think you're going to pay the price for that in your ministry in the future, to be honest with you. I have no doubt about that. Serving your country is a choice for all Australians. We don't have national service or conscription. We are one of the lucky countries at this point in time that does not need that. I emphasise 'at this point in time'. To serve for us is a choice, and we do that because we love our country and we put our country first. That is what we do. We don't ask for a great deal in return; in fact, we pride ourselves on being in that situation and having the capacity to shut up and get on with the job, because, once again, we love our country. Most service personnel say nothing when they get a raw deal, because we just get used to it. We just shut up and we take it. Adversity is part of the job, and diggers are trained to be tough—and we are. We get used to the tough environments. But, when it's your own people making it tough, when it's your own people who don't care— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Lambie, your time has expired. Would you like to seek leave to continue your remarks? Senator LAMBIE 250026 I would like to seek leave to continue my remarks. Thank you very much. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 82 DOCUMENTS Treasury, Department of Home Affairs 82 Order for the Production of Documents 82 MOTIONS 82 MOTIONS Rewiring the Nation 82 16:38 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) calls on all senators to consider the effectiveness of the Government's 'Rewiring the Nation' policy; (b) acknowledges and supports the intent of the policy, which aims to maximise the amount of variable renewable energy in pursuit of meeting or surpassing Australia's 2030 Paris Agreement targets; (c) notes with concern that the proposed $100 billion investment in transmission infrastructure does not directly contribute to the generation of additional electricity or the storage of energy; (d) expresses its dismay that this policy may represent an attempt to rectify past investment errors rather than a forward-looking strategy for sustainable energy development; (e) observes that there is significant lack of social licence for this policy within the communities it will impact, as well as deep reservations among the Australian population; and (f) noting the current approach of the policy, asks the Government to rework the current strategy in a manner that is more aligned with the immediate and long-term energy needs of Australia, as well as the expectations and welfare of its communities. This motion is about the government's Rewiring the Nation policy, and I must say that, now that I sit as an independent, it's a joy to be able to debate the merits of policy, not the politics of it. So I'll say right upfront that the intent behind this policy I do support—that is, to bring down emissions and increase renewable energy in the system such that we can meet and, hopefully, beat our quest, which currently is a 43 per cent reduction, which is the government's current Paris target. When we debated the legislation of that 43 per cent target last year, I stood in this place and I said I didn't think 43 per cent was ambitious enough—and I still don't, but I'll have more to say on that at a future time. As responsible legislators, our duty is to scrutinise and evaluate the effectiveness of such policies, ensuring that they provide value for money and benefit for all Australians. I don't think Rewiring the Nation will achieve that. Rewiring the Nation is going to require about a $100 billion investment in transmission infrastructure underwritten by $20 billion of taxpayers' money. Again, while the intent is commendable, I question whether this investment offers the best value for money and whether it truly embraces a future-focused strategy for sustainable energy development. Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the ambitious goal of 43 per cent. But, while commendable, this target, in comparison with those of other nations, is not as ambitious as it could be. With the current pace of emissions still rising, causing temperatures to head towards 1.5 degrees, we need to be doing more. As a nation we have the opportunity to do better, to be more ambitious and demand more-efficient energy transmission options. The current version of the Rewiring the Nation policy faces several significant challenges: first, extremely high cost; second, slow rollout; third, lack of social licence; fourth, increased fire risk; and five, the potential risk of grid insecurity. The policy's focus on stringing wires and poles across our country to create an enormous infrastructure is economically inefficient and will lead to higher prices for consumers at a time when all Australians are already grappling with the escalating costs of living. Those listening at home may not know that a portion of their electricity bill is made up of a supply charge. You'll see it on the back of your energy bill. This charge funds the transmission and distribution infrastructure that transports electricity from generators into the market. With the government planning to invest $10 billion in underwriting tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines, this is part of what is known as a regulated asset base. This asset base is the asset base of mostly foreign owned companies that build the transmission lines, and it will increase by more than $100 billion. The Australian Energy Regulator sets a rate of return on these assets, which is currently 5.75 per cent, and that gets recovered from all energy users. That's everyone in this chamber and everybody listening at home. Given the enormous amount of transmission suggested in AEMO's integrated systems plan and its incumbent economic inefficiencies, these policies need to be revisited to put accountability back on those who are building the renewable systems, such that they have to count in that project the costs of transmission. If those projects don't stand up if they have to pay for the transmission, then why should the Australian taxpayers, the Australian energy users, have to pay for it? For the Albanese government to meet its 2030 target it will need to deliver a minimum of 86 gigawatts of variable renewable energy, or VRE, as it's known, as well as at least 46 gigawatts of firming storage. That could be batteries, pumped hydro, gravitational—there are lots of different technologies out there to do that. Yet the transmission required, according to the ISP, to reach a 43 per cent reduction will not even be built by 2030, and that's at best. Projects like the Victoria to New South Wales Interconnector West, or VNI West, as it is known, as well as Snowy 2.0 and the transmission needed to service that will not be fully online until after 2029. This slow rollout and enormous cost blowouts mean that these projects will have little to no measurable effect and certainly will not be contributing to a 43 per cent target. So I appeal to the chamber to see how important it is that we ask the government to reconsider the Rewiring the Nation policy. As senators our role, on behalf of the public, is to review and evaluate the effectiveness of policy. It is our responsibility to oversee a rewrite of the energy transmission plan, to deliver sustainable, reliable, cost-effective energy that meets the needs of Australia now and in the future. I will give a little bit of a history lesson for those at home. When Sir John Monash set up the State Electricity Commission of Victoria he had to look to how he was going to generate electricity. He knew that there was coal down in the Latrobe Valley, so he built the generation plants down there. Because of the technology advances, he knew he could transmit it from the Latrobe Valley back up to Melbourne. It was a noble and good thing to do at the time. Now, as we all know, the fuel needed to fire up our energy sources is everywhere. Wind and solar are everywhere, so building transmission is not needed. If we were to consider alternative uses of that $100 billion, and there are many, we can come up with better ways than spending $100 billion on transmission that does not generate one electron and that does not store one kilowatt hour of energy. By way of an exercise, I sat down and asked, 'What would it cost to put solar on every household in Australia?' There are 9.275 million households in Australia. For a five-kilowatt system, at about $7,000, that is $65 billion. That's a lot less than $93 billion. If you were to put a Tesla battery in every house, at about 10 grand a pop retail, that would get you to $93 billion, a lot less than $100 billion. It doesn't take long to figure out that $100 billion spent rewiring the nation is a complete waste of money. That's not to say that some transmission isn't needed—some is, particularly if we move to offshore wind and other technologies. However, not only are transmission lines expensive—and they don't actually contribute to reducing emissions—but also they don't have the support of the Australian people. Our taxpayers are well aware of the alternatives to poles and wires. Let's face it: there is no social licence for rewiring the nation via outdated technologies and infrastructure. Our constituents know that there are more efficient and effective solutions to energy transmission. They exercise their right, demanding that governments provide those. Large-scale transmission distribution projects have faced and are facing significant challenges in gaining social acceptance. Local residents, businesses and farmers, usually in the regions, oppose these projects. We've seen lots of protests against them. According to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner: … it is feasible that a period spanning 20 years or more can occur between the original prospecting at the project site, obtaining permit approvals and the project eventually being constructed. Given this reality, there is practically no reasonable hope that any large-scale transmission projects will be approved and built in time to make a meaningful contribution to reducing emissions by 2030. In my own state of Victoria, new transmission projects are facing increased opposition from communities in regional Victoria and other areas. For example, the $3.3 billion planned VNI West—I guarantee you it will not be delivered at that price—has encountered local protests. A KPMG report suggests that this transmission project will likely blow out in cost by as much as 40 per cent. Unfortunately, VNI West is not alone in experiencing cost overruns. Other major transmission projects, including EnergyConnect, HumeLink and Marinus Link, have seen significant increases in cost estimates since 2018. These projects have experienced cost increases of 50 per cent, 190 per cent and 250 per cent, respectively. Collectively, the costs of these four projects has increased by 140 per cent on average in just four years. As responsible legislators, we must ask government to rework the current strategy in a manner that is more aligned with the immediate and long-term energy needs of Australia and Australians. In Australia, nearly half of our largest companies have committed to net zero emissions targets. This is a clear indication of the growing momentum towards a low-carbon economy, but this will require significant shifts in the investment and policy frameworks to accommodate this transition. With coal-fired generation falling away, that number is more than likely to grow. You only have to look at AEMO's second-most aggressive scenario in its 2022 Integrated System Plan, which has all of our coal fleet retiring by 2030. These retirements signal real risk for our national electricity market in the form of both system security and supply security. Fortunately, both are solvable with the use of the right technologies in the NEM, the national electricity market, but cannot be solved by simply increasing the amount of VRE alone. It is the variability of supply from VRE and the direct-current, not alternating-current, nature of these generation technologies that bring about the system insecurities in the system. We need an energy plan that can support the huge influx of distributed energy resources, like rooftop solar. We need a plan that can manage the increased volume and variability of supply from VRE, because the nature of these technologies does not work in the current national electricity grid. We need a plan that offers stability, security and safety. We also need to consider the very real bushfire risk that transmission poses. I worked on the Black Saturday bushfires royal commission, and I can tell you that the evidence there was that transmission lines pose very real bushfire risks. The only way to mitigate these risks is to use underground or other high-cost technical solutions. These costs would have to be met by other taxpayers or electricity consumers via a higher AER regulated return on the supply charge, as I mentioned before. Long-range transmission lines are also highly susceptible to extreme weather, as the blackout in South Australia a couple years ago showed. We can do better for the Australian people. We must do better for our country. We must do better for our world. We need to rewrite the Rewiring the Nation plan. It's not all doom and gloom. There are a raft of opportunities and possibilities to provide sustainable, safe, secure energy, but you just have to do it smarter. In conclusion, I propose that the government revisit the current Rewiring the Nation plan. I'm happy to work with them on ways to insert a practical and cost-effective approach to transmission and distribution, to find solutions that are aligned with the immediate and long-term energy needs of Australia that look at more efficient generation, next-generation storage opportunities and better abatement opportunities. Let's look at our energy transmission holistically as a whole-of-energy-supply issue. We can then achieve a more sustainable and economically feasible energy future for Australia—a secure, sustainable, fair and financially viable energy supply. (Time expired) 16:53 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank the senator for the opportunity to talk about the Albanese government's Rewiring the Nation program. As senators would be aware, Rewiring the Nation is our plan to provide $20 billion in low-cost finance to upgrade, expand and modernise our electricity grid. We know that transmission is critical to energy transformation. It will enable more renewables and storage to be connected to the grid, driving down energy prices. I can update the Senate that Rewiring the Nation agreements have been signed with New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia. In New South Wales, our agreement will back eight critical transmission projects, including HumeLink, VNI West and important New South Wales renewable energy zones. The New South Wales data indicates that this agreement will support more than 3,900 jobs in New South Wales regions. In Victoria, we are financing VNI West, as well as Victorian renewable energy zones, and securing the Victorian government's support for Marinus Link. Transgrid and AEMO estimate that VNI West will create over 2,000 direct jobs and thousands more indirect jobs. Most will be in regional New South Wales and Victoria. In Western Australia, we have signed a $3 billion deal to bolster WA's energy security by expanding and modernising electricity grids in Perth, the South West and the north-west Pilbara region. The WA government forecast the investment in WA is expected to support around 1,800 construction jobs, helping to empower regional communities. In Tasmania we have signed an agreement to deliver Marinus Link, which has a critical role to play in our transformation to net zero, a key opportunity for 1,400 jobs and economic development in the state. These are critical projects identified by the market operator that are needed to keep energy security and create jobs right across the country. It is not the entirety of what is required, though. Rewiring the Nation is only the beginning, and we have a comprehensive suite of policies to build out the energy grid that our nation needs for the future. Our Capacity Investment Scheme will deliver six gigawatts of new firmed capacity and storage into the system, while Rewiring the Nation is supporting investment in transmission to better connect those renewables to the grid. The senator raised issues around social licence. This is critically important. It is why we are prioritising communities at the heart of these policies. We want communities to have a clear stake and a clear say in transmission. This is why the Albanese government announced the community engagement review on 4 July this year. This review is being led by Andrew Dyer, the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner. He will report to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in December 2023. Already the review has met with 470 stakeholders from across Australia to feed into this important work, and this is on top of the submissions received via an online portal. The review will provide advice on the best way to maximise engagement and benefit in planning, developing and operating infrastructure, including for communities, landholders and First Nations people. We are also partnering with the states and territories and transmission network service providers. Together we're improving planning, community engagement and community outcomes for new electricity developments. As ageing traditional assets reach their retirement, upgrades and new builds of energy infrastructure, including transmission, are essential for energy security and for delivering cleaner, cheaper energy. We are working to give better guidance to landholders and communities about their rights and entitlements, introduce reforms for earlier and better engagement with communities by proponents and ensure complaints are appropriately handled. We are supporting regional communities to get the best outcomes from new energy infrastructure. The Australian government recently expanded funding for the Office of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner so that that office may work with communities where there are concerns about the development of renewable energy projects. We're also making changes to the national electricity rules to clarify consultation requirements for transmission to ensure that developments begin at the very start of the route selection process. This will improve community engagement and give back a little more confidence and trust in the consultation process. I will conclude by offering this: Rewiring the Nation is critical to the energy transformation. It will enable more renewables and storage to be connected to the grid. It is an important feature in delivering on an economic agenda to unlock the supply constraints that have been a significant hurdle in the economy, and it is an important remedy to the energy chaos generated by those opposite in the near decade when they failed to add a single energy policy. 16:58 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I would like to commend Senator Van for bringing this motion to the Senate today. I think most of us in this place know we have had seven goes at 'transmission Tuesday' where we've tried to get an inquiry on the transmission lines, where they're going and particularly the impact on communities and fatherland that will be overtaken by these powerlines going through their land, so devaluing properties. We also know that there will be significant Indigenous cultural heritage sites that will be impacted and that those opposite have absolutely no regard for those people. They were supposedly proponents for an Indigenous voice to parliament, but they're not proponents for an Indigenous voice on our cultural heritage sites when it comes to transmission lines. The Greens have also opposed our 'transmission Tuesday' inquiry. How much can a koala bear? Well, we know a koala bear can't handle a transmission line through its habitat. They cannot handle transmission lines going straight through koala habitats. I feel like this is a theme today, but we know about the only chlamydia-free koala habitat—don't worry about that. There will be transmission lines straight through the middle of it. 'Don't worry about an STD, we will get rid of you with a transmission line. You're chlamydia free, but you won't be alive for much longer anyway, thanks to the transmission lines that this government is determined to ram through, across and over every single community it can find—but, of course, only those in rural and regional Australia, because it wouldn't dare elsewhere.' The nimbys all want the renewable energy, but they say, 'Don't, please, put a battery in my back yard.' We've seen that in the teal seats. In Waverley and in North Sydney they say, 'No, we can't have a battery covered in Indigenous art in a park out of the way, out of sight.' They all went teal because they're climate people. They're all so concerned about climate change, but they say, 'Please don't upset the amenity of my suburb with anything so abhorrent as one battery,' let alone what the poor people in rural and regional Australia are going to have to go through with eyesores of transmission lines going right through their communities and farms and contributing to bushfire issues. Senator Van talked about it, and I know he's very well aware through his inquiry work of the danger that transmission lines pose when it comes to bushfires. We're headed into a really hot summer. Everyone is saying it. It's going to be really hot. No-one will be able to afford, with the power bills, to put their aircon on. We know that we're going to face more issues when it comes to transmission lines, blackouts and bushfires. But, again, the bushfires don't really impact those who live in Potts Point, Claremont or, perhaps, Glenelg. They don't upset them. Bushfires don't affect them. Sometimes it gets a bit smoggy. The air is not great as the bushfire comes over. The air quality can decline, but it's not your home or earning capacity that's in the firing line; it's the farmers'. It's those in rural regional Australia who are directly impacted by these threats. Senator Van, I would like to thank you for bringing this motion to us. We now enter 'transmission Thursday'. Maybe this will become a regular thing. It should become a regular thing, because I can guarantee—for all those who are excited—that 'transmission Tuesday' will be coming back. The T-shirts are on order: transmission Tuesday. We might have to update it. We might get a little TT. We'll get a nice logo made—'TT'—so we can run them out for transmission Thursday as well. We would get a double usage. Look at us recycling. We're so conscious on this side of making sure we get maximum value with a 'TT' on our T-shirts or our buttons for transmission Tuesday and transmission Thursday. I note, Senator Van, that in your comments—through you, Acting Deputy President—you talked about how, as an Independent, you could talk about issues without necessarily having to put a political lens over them. I hope, as an Independent, Senator Van, you may have more luck working with your fellow crossbencher Senator Pocock and with your fellow crossbenchers who sit on my far left, in more ways than one. Perhaps you can work with them. Maybe you can even convince the Labor Party, because they're probably going to want your vote on a few things. Maybe you can have a little word with them and say, 'We'd really like an inquiry into these transmission lines.' I'm really concerned about what's happening with these transmission lines powering through communities and upsetting rural and regional communities all across this nation—all except for WA. I'm sorry, Senator Smith; in WA you have your own thing going on over there. But all the states on the eastern seaboard are going be impacted by these transmission lines. You are right when you say the $100 billion—which I think is probably an undersell of the figure—is for transmission lines over the top of the land, when we know that, if they were underground, it would be much safer from a bushfire perspective, would look prettier and might not upset as much arable farmland. But the $100 billion, which is a lowball figure, is only delivering transmission lines. It's not delivering, as you say, any storage. It's not generating anything. So think about all the costs that are going to be required to actually generate the power that's got to go on these new transmission lines. No-one's thinking about that. No-one's talking about any of those sorts of things. Senator Van, I do wish you luck as an Independent who doesn't need to put a political lens over things and whose vote every now and then will be required or requested from a certain side of the chamber. Perhaps you, with all of your powers of persuasion and negotiation skills and your keen understanding of what the energy needs of this country are and how the energy sector works—I note Senator Van has a history of working in the sector, unlike, probably, what many sitting on the other side would have ever experienced, let alone being on a farm or working in a business. In fact, I was interested to learn the other day that Senator Chisholm apparently worked for Santos. I'm sure it was a union delegate role, but he did work for a company that has a bottom line and a board and doesn't just recycle union reps. So there is one person that sits opposite that's actually worked for a business that's concerned about generating a profit, and it was in the energy space, so perhaps Senator Chisholm could speak to his mates, too. But, Senator Van, I wish you all the luck in trying to get some inquiries, movements and acknowledgement that Australian communities, particularly those in rural and regional areas, deserve to be listened to, to be heard and to hear their concerns raised. Social licence doesn't exist for this program, and it is about time that this government put its big-boy pants on, went out, spoke to these communities and heard what they had to say. 17:05 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales For the most part, I support Senator Van's motion. From the outset, I want to talk about part (b) of Senator Van's motion, which says that he acknowledges and supports the intent of the Rewiring the Nation policy. We're a bit reluctant to be so enthusiastic about the intent, because we do think that the Rewiring the Nation program puts the cart before the horse. In part (d) of Senator Van's motion, he expresses dismay that this policy may represent an attempt to rectify past investment errors rather than having a forward-thinking strategy. Time and time again, we see that this government does policy first, without looking at how it will be implemented, what the flow-on impacts will be and what the impact on potential investment will be. It's all about the announcements and less about the actual impact. My colleague Senator Hughes spoke about the bushfire risk of transmission lines. We can't all run around with fire hydrants in the bush. We're too far away. It is a significant risk. The other risk that is often not considered is the insurability of our landscape. I am already hearing from farmers who've had their little, black, waterproof envelope stuck to their farm gate, saying: 'You lucky person! You've won the transmission line lottery. Your property is under a route for a transmission line. We will be in touch to talk.' Those farmers are then also getting phone calls from their insurance companies. Yes—you've won the double lottery, because, if a transmission line goes through your property, your property will not be able to be insured against bushfires. All the farmers that will be under transmission lines won't be able to have bushfire insurance for their farms, pastures, crops—if indeed they can crop—woolsheds and family homes. That is a massive risk. In a nation like Australia—with my emergency management hat on—insurability is a major issue that I know this government is looking into. This government has set up the Hazards Insurance Partnership program specifically to look into how to mitigate risk and reduce pressures on insurance premiums. At the same time, the Rewiring the Nation program doesn't even consider the flow-on impact those projects will have on insurability. It's similar for people who are next to solar farms. They've also got similar risks. It is a significant risk. The other issue with transmission lines is this. I live in an irrigation area, which is smack-bang underneath the VNI West project, which is to connect a renewable energy zone near Coleambally—an irrigation area—to Kerang in north-west Victoria. This particular project goes directly across an intensive irrigation farming area. For those who don't really know about irrigation farming, when we're talking broadacre cropping, when we're talking the staples that feed the world, that people turn to for food aid programs and the likes, when we're talking wheat, oats, barley, rice, canola—those beautiful yellow flowers that all the tourists come out to take their photos with—a lot of that work is done using aerial agricultural assistance. You fly on your fertiliser using aerial ag pilots—brave aerial ag pilots I might add. But they're not so brave that they want to dodge transmission lines, I can tell you. And, even if they were, they're not allowed to. There is a 120-metre exclusion zone each way around transmission lines for aerial activity, be it drones going out to check the cattle water on board rangeland or ag pilots flying on urea or other inputs for maximum cropping potential. That's 120 metres each way. That's a 240-metre exclusion zone across the length of the transmission lines. That is going to put a big gap in how we operate and manage our agricultural production in this area. There isn't an easy alternative. People say, 'Just get the tractor out and put the fertiliser on with the tractor.' Well, I don't know how easy it is to drive a tractor through a flooded rice bay. I'm pretty sure it would get bogged. It doesn't matter how good the tractor is. And we can't just stop growing rise because our rice in this country feeds 50 million people around the world in a good year. We export our rice around the world. If we didn't export our rice around the world, someone else would have to produce it, and I can guarantee you the quality of the production systems, the labour force protections, the chemical protections wouldn't be there. There is a reason why Australia has such a good reputation as an agricultural production country, and it is because we've got very high-class quality controls—chemical usage controls, fertiliser usage controls and labour controls. We don't use child labour. We have water quality controls to make sure that the water we're putting on our crops is of a decent quality and also to make sure the water we're taking off our crops doesn't get back, as a contaminated water supply, into our river system. If you run hundreds of kilometres of transmission lines through our high-quality agricultural production zones, you will have an impact on our productivity and on how we produce. But it isn't just agriculture that will be impacted. These transmission lines, this rewiring the nation, will impact state forests, and our koalas love our state forests. But apparently it's okay! We'll just bulldoze a swathe of land—because you've got to have cleared land—through state forests at the expense of the koala habitat! It will also impact our national parks. There are some transmission lines going through national parks and above historic homesteads and villages. These are all under threat. I particularly commend Senator Van's acknowledgement of the lack of social licence. The amazing thing is the small social licence that ever existed with these projects is diminishing by the day. If we had our transmission Tuesday inquiry, perhaps, by having that forensic look, we could actually work on turning that around. But, because Labor and the Greens steadfastly refuse to give us our inquiry, I have no choice but to support Senator Van. 17:15 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I thank Senator Van for his motion and the opportunity to make a contribution on it. We must shine a light on the government's Rewiring the Nation program. That's obvious. It's a program that feels like it was inspired by that ABC show—comedy, documentary, whatever it is—by the name of Utopia. Senator Davey 281697 Documentary! Senator BABET 300706 Documentary, I've been told. If you haven't seen that show, it's about a bunch of bureaucrats who are in charge of big building schemes. That's what it is. I don't watch the ABC, and I don't imagine many on this side of the chamber would, and rightly so. It's garbage. I've just been told about the show, guys. The government has thrown billions of dollars at this Rewiring the Nation program, a program that stinks to high heaven of desperation and seeks to cover up the massive policy failure that is our nation's transition to so-called renewable energy. What is renewable, in the name of God, about renewable energy? What is renewable about solar panels that last 15 to 20 years and then go in landfill, or wind turbines that last about the same and then also end up in landfill? The only thing that is renewable about renewable energy is the cost. That is the only thing that is renewable about it. It is not a good technology. The Albanese government is, at this very moment, attempting to crisscross the nation with a spider web of powerlines as it attempts to retrofit our energy grid. This project is obviously going to impact farmland and it's going to make power bills unaffordable. You know who's going to suffer? It's the poorest in our country who are going to suffer. The inner city teal voters ain't going to suffer. People in this place here ain't going to suffer. It's just the poorest in our nation. I call it a vanity project, because—and this is the astonishing part—the whole exercise is wholly unnecessary. We don't need to do it. If the government would just for a moment step back from the cult-like obsession—that's what it is, a cult-like obsession—with renewables and just for a second consider nuclear power, it would be immediately evident that Rewiring the Nation is just not needed. Why? I'll tell you why. Because nuclear power plants can be built in the exact same footprint where we have the coal-fired power stations right now. They'll plug right into the existing transmission line infrastructure and they can start powering the nation straightaway—no need for anything else. Build it, plug it in and we'll be good to go. There will be no spaghetti network of wires needed, no farmland needing to be usurped, no billions spent for the needless duplication of transmission lines. We already have them. They're already there. There will be no need for struggling families to be in mortal fear every time they get that bill from the power company. Speaking of the bill from the power company, you might know what I'm going to say next: where is my $275, Mr Prime Minister? I still haven't got it. I'm waiting for it. When am I going to get it? The answer is never, because power bills ain't going down. They're only going one way, and that's up, up into the heavens. That's where they're going. System costs are much lower for nuclear than for wind and for solar. There is no need to build a great deal of infrastructure to use this energy source, for which we have an abundant amount of fuel in South Australia. In contrast, as we've already heard from some other contributions, wind and solar require around $100 billion of additional funding to meet the 2050 net zero targets. We all know how the government works. We all know how bureaucracies work. It's not going to be $100 billion—it's going to be much more than that. Let's be honest. Let's not kid ourselves. It will be much more than that—$100 billion is a pipedream; that's what it is. Future generations will look back at this present government and marvel at the pig-headedness that insisted on torching taxpayer money duplicating transmission lines—not to save the planet, no; there's nothing about this that's saving the planet. What's saving the planet in digging up more minerals? What's saving the planet in putting in more transmission lines? What's saving the planet in solar panels and wind turbines that end up in landfill? That's not saving the planet; that's killing the planet. More pollution is what it is. It's no good. The whole point of this is ideology. It is not practical at all. The bottom line is that Australian families and businesses are being forced to spend money that we don't have for these transmission lines. We don't have to solve a climate crisis. Why? A climate crisis does not exist. There is nothing here to save. If you had made an argument and you said to me, 'We need to cut back on pollution,' I'd listen to you. If you talked about microplastics in the ocean, if you had talked about run-off from factories and things like that going into estuaries and creeks, if you had said, 'We need to make companies responsible for the real pollution that they produce when they make goods and services,' I'd be on board for that. But if you tell me that CO2, a colourless, odourless gas that we need as the very foundation, the building block, for life, is somehow a pollutant, you're just mad. That's what you are—you're mad. This whole thing about 'the science is settled'—I tell you what: science is never settled. That's just absolute garbage. In conclusion, I'd like to say we need to look at nuclear energy. It is the best way forward—better yet, more coal and more gas. 17:21 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Thank you, Senator Babet. You've touched on many good issues there. I too support this motion in relation to Rewiring the Nation, because at the end of the day what will start off as a $100 billion investment will end up as much more than that. That figure has been quoted quite a few times. It was first quoted a few years ago, so it would already be considerably more than what is quoted here. I'm glad we've got Senator McAllister here. I asked her in estimates how they are tracking the cost of transmission lines up until 2030 and how many kilometres of transmission lines are needed by 2030. Of course, we can never get a straight answer to any of this sort of question. We know that renewables not only destroy the environment, whether it's our biodiversity et cetera; they are also going to destroy our economy. We have touched on this many times this afternoon and previously in the chamber. I will take up Senator Babet's comment that the science isn't settled. I actually think the science has been settled for quite a while, and it's actually called the ideal gas law. CO2 is a gas, and one of the things that really annoys me about this argument is that it's about the greenhouse effect into climate change. The problem of climate change is that that's an immeasurable KPI. You can't actually measure climate change. It states the obvious, because at the end of the day you're often asked, 'Do you believe in climate change?' Guess what? Climate change isn't a religion. It's not something you believe in. It's something you understand. I think we all agree that the Earth spins on its axis every 24 hours, rotates around the sun every 365 days and has a slight tilt because of the gravitational pull from the moon, which gives us our seasons. Kepler and Tycho Brahe in the late 1600s and early 1700s came up with the fact that the Earth travels in an ellipsis. All of these factors will contribute to a change in the climate. That's not the issue. The point is whether or not you want to believe that CO2 actually traps heat. That was the initial argument—that somehow suddenly CO2 traps heat. That's an oxymoronic statement, because heat is kinetic energy. It is the energy of motion. If it were true that CO2 were to trap heat, as these people say, then the actual temperature would drop, because temperature is a measure of mean molecular momentum. The slower the molecules move, the colder it gets. Yet again, the logic is completely flawed. But not only that; they love to say that nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to radiation as it bounces off the Earth. Well, guess what. CO2 is pretty much transparent to radiation and bounces off the Earth as well except in a couple of frequencies. All molecules have what's known as a spectral fingerprint, and you tell how many spectral fingerprints a molecule will have. You take the number of atoms in a molecule and, if it's a linear molecule, you'll multiply by three and subtract six. If it's a non-linear molecule, you'll multiply by three and subtract five. CO2 has three atoms. Multiply it by three. It's a nonlinear molecule because you've got your carbon and two oxygens, which make it triangular in shape, so you get four spectral fingerprints. They are what's known as a vibrational frequency. It's very similar to something like surfing a wave: if you want to actually catch a wave, you've got to paddle onto the wave and be travelling in the right direction and at about the same speed to get on the wave. It works the same way for carbon dioxide, but here's the rub: one of the vibrational frequencies at which CO2 absorbs photons that come from the Sun is actually at the 2.8 micron phase. Of course, 2.8 microns is incoming radiation. For some particular reason, these people who have come with this greenhouse gas effect theory seem to want to ignore the fact—and the head of the CSIRO has admitted this to me in estimates—that CO2 absorbs radiation at 2.8 microns. Now, it is true that it also absorbs photons on the way out at 14.8 microns. The four vibrational frequencies, just so you know, are 2.8 microns, 4.2 microns and then two vibrational frequencies at 14.8. That matters because we know from Planck's equation, E=hv, that effectively the incoming radiation that CO2 absorbs is actually five times stronger than the outgoing photons it absorbs. Of course, they never take that into account in their calculations, just like how, when it comes to the net zero modelling, they don't take into account the impact of phytoplankton, which is kind of crazy given that that absorbs 70 per cent of the world's CO2 anyway. But that is something that is completely overlooked. Of course, the other thing that is completely overlooked is Albert Einstein's paper that he did in 1917, 'On the quantum theory of radiation'. On page 14 he says the Maxwellian effect can be ignored. James Clerk Maxwell was a brilliant Scottish physicist who determined in the mid-19th century that electricity, light and magnetism were basically different manifestations of the same phenomenon. This matters. Einstein went on to say in his paper in 1917, on page 14, that radiation is so insignificant with regard to the other properties that it effectively drops out. Those other properties, of course, are convection and conduction. That's a very important point to make, and we know this because we see this every day: this thing called the wind. That's convection. That follows the second law of thermodynamics, which says the entropy of a system must always increase. That means that it is constantly taking heat and lifting it up into the atmosphere. If you actually go look at the height of the troposphere, you will see—at the equator it is 16 kilometres high, and at the poles it's about six kilometres high. What does that mean? It means that heat is carried up and taken out to space at the equator. Interestingly enough, if you look at the maximum and minimum temperatures of locations around the globe—I will use Singapore for an example. The maximum temperature in Singapore is about 32. I'm talking the record maximum temperature. That is actually much lower than, for example, somewhere in the middle of Australia, where it's very dry and the maximum temperature can hit up to 50 degrees. Why is that? It is because the molecules and greenhouse effect—or what these people refer to—doesn't actually exist. It cools. When I say 'cools', I mean it works both ways. It reduces the volatility between maximum and minimum temperatures. I want to call out these models, because, if we look at the energy budget given to me by the CSIRO, they claim that the downwelling radiation from CO2 is 342 watts per square metre. Yet the amount of energy that comes from the sun is 161 watts per square metre. It is absolutely absurd to think that CO2 has twice the energy of the radiation from the sun. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The debate is interrupted and, following the hours motion agreed to earlier, we will now return to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. BILLS 90 BILLS Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 90

Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 90 17:30 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia In very brief summary: the Labor Party has shown a complete inability to deal with what is a very important issue in a timely fashion. What we do know is that the Labor Party has had months of notice that this was a risk. The decision was handed down by the High Court a week ago. Those on this side warned about it immediately. I know for a fact that Senator Paterson, the shadow minister for home affairs, warned the next day that urgent legislation was required, and then Labor persisted for a week—basically until yesterday—in insisting that an urgent legislative response was not required. As a result, we saw the Australian community put at risk. That is not an acceptable response from an Australian government, and it is good that we are finally seeing some urgency from those on the other side. We are finally seeing the seriousness of this matter given the attention that it deserves in terms of a legislative response from this chamber. It is also good to see the government agreeing with the sensible amendments put forward by my colleagues. On that note, I will sit down. 17:33 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, which is an absolute disgrace. It is an attack on democracy, on our courts, on the rule of law, on liberty and on freedom, all dressed up as one big attempt by Mr Dutton, helped here by the government of the day, to launch a new, full-blown attack on refugees in this country. For years and years, we have seen successive governments use some of the most vulnerable people around the world and in our community, who have come to Australia seeking our assistance, protection and help—refugees—as political footballs. They have been used to win elections, destroy prime ministerships, take power and excuse other bad laws being introduced. And here we are all over again. You'd think we would have learnt by now. You'd think we would have learnt that, every time this place rams through legislation that is designed to attack and undermine the rights of refugees right around the world and who come to our shores asking for our help, eventually the day would come when a brave judge or bench of judges would stand up and say: 'You know what? This is not on. Some things actually are important to uphold.' That's exactly what the High Court has done in the last fortnight—that indefinite detention is illegal. That's what the High Court has ruled. Rather than that warning being taken and understood, what we have seen is now a kneejerk reaction from the Albanese government, at the behest and under the political pressure of Mr Dutton's opposition. Let me be absolutely clear. I know there are members of the Labor Party who are hanging their heads in shame this afternoon. They know that ramming this piece of legislation through is wrong, is immoral and goes against everything that, as members of the Labor Party, they believe. Yet here they are, jumping at the shadows, the scares and the fear campaign from Peter Dutton and his party. All Mr Dutton has is the politics of fear. We've seen that this year already with the opposition to the voice and the way Peter Dutton and his nasty party behaved during the referendum—the spreading of lies, misinformation and disinformation, whipping up fear, hatred and racism. He got a taste of it only a few months ago, and he's bloodthirsty for it again—bloodthirsty for the fear. That is Peter Dutton to a T. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Paterson? Senator Paterson 144138 On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am just seeking your advice on whether or not it's an adverse reflection on a member of the other place to say that they're bloodthirsty. I would have thought it was. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Hanson Young, it is a reflection, and I'd ask you to withdraw, please. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Mr Dutton has got a taste of what fear, misinformation and hatred can deliver him, and he wants more of it. He's hungry for it. This is the Dutton tail wagging the Labor dog. Make no mistake about it. I've been in this place for nearly 16 years, and this issue continues to be one of nasty politics, using the lives of refugees to score political points and win political ground, and it's disgusting. It's absolutely disgusting, and we're seeing it all over again. I can't count how many times this chamber has had to sit late into the evening because both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party decide that it's time to ram through some draconian law that limits the freedoms, rights and human rights protections of refugees in this country. It's happened so many times, and finally the High Court, a fortnight ago, said the worst of all of those, the indefinite detention of a person without the ruling of a court, without hearing or a trial, at the whim of a minister or his public servant delegate, is illegal. We've known it's wrong, but now we know for sure that it's illegal. But, in the haste to respond to this because the Dutton opposition wants to gain ground by whipping up fear and racism in this country, the Labor Party have gone weak at the knees. Where is the guts? Where is the political spine to stand up for the basic principles you believe in? Not only are we seeing this legislation being rammed through in a knee-jerk reaction before you've even seen the High Court's deliberations and reasons, we're seeing the Labor Party agree to amend their own rushed piece of legislation to make it even worse because Peter Dutton demanded it— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U because Mr Dutton demanded that the bill must be tougher, must be nastier, must be meaner. So what did the Labor Party do? 'Oh, okay, please stop. Don't say anything more!' It is so sickening to me that you have no spine. What is the point of being in government? What is the point of having a Labor Attorney-General? What is the point of having a Labor immigration minister? What is the point of having a Labor Prime Minister if all you're going to do is implement the policies of the Liberal Party? People are going to be upset about this, shocked about this and heartbroken about this because it sets a very, very bad precedent. You have just let the cat out of the bag. Peter Dutton says 'Boo!'— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, please refer to others in the other chamber by their correct titles. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U The cat is out of the bag. Mr Dutton says, 'Boo,' and the Labor Party hides. This is a bad bill. It will be found to be bad in years to come, perhaps only in weeks and months to come. The High Court will not be happy, because they have understood that locking people up without trial, without reason, without a judgement is wrong. Indefinitely locking people up, imprisoning them without a trial, without the independence of a judge, at the whim of a minister, is wrong. If you really want to make sure there are laws that protect the community, give judges and courts the right to do it and to do it properly. That is all you had to do, and you didn't have the guts to do it. 17:42 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Refugees and people seeking asylum have for decades borne the brunt of cruel, inhumane and racist government policies in this country aimed at dehumanising, demonising, deterring, detaining and deporting vulnerable people, resulting in unimaginable damage for thousands of people, including women and children. Refugees have seen decades of bipartisan Labor-Liberal cruelty in the form of temporary protection visas, mandatory detention, offshore processing, being locked up in hotels during the COVID pandemic and not being allowed to go even to university. They have been hidden away with no access to journalists, losing all hope, and in desperation they've harmed themselves, they've died by suicide and they've died because they didn't get medical treatment. That's the extent of the cruelty that Labor and the Liberals have inflicted on people who are just seeking safety in this country. They are maligned by how they are described: queue jumpers, boat people, illegals, criminal aliens, economic refugees, threats to national security. It is just disgraceful. They are painted as people very different to so-called mainstream Australia. They are from a different culture, we are told. They are not one of us, we are told. It is shameful. Politicians have said they don't want people like that in Australia. These boat people, they say, throw their children into the ocean. They lie. And so continues the othering of people just like us. For years we have watched politicians and the media whip up anti-refugee and anti-immigrant hysteria. For years we have warned of the impact it has on our community. For years we have spoken out about the damage this causes and the sucker it gives to white nationalists that want to kick all non-white people out of Australia. In 2001—and I do want people to be reminded of this, in case some have forgotten—the then Prime Minister John Howard famously, or should I say, shamefully, said, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' This culminated in the Tampa affair, which you could say was one of the most divisive federal election campaigns in Australia. This was also the first time I ever considered joining a political party, and the Greens were the obvious choice. While both the Liberals and Labor were busily creating panic and demonising desperate people, claiming they had thrown their children overboard, the voice of Bob Brown rose over and above the rubble. When innocent people seeking asylum were maligned by the Howard government, supported by the Beazley opposition, the Greens were the only voice of humanity speaking out to bring them here. I'm so proud of my colleague and comrade Senator Nick McKim, who has carried on the tradition of courage, humanity, fairness and justice for refugees. From then to now, people who seek asylum and refuge have been increasingly subjected to policies that have become more and more cruel, more restrictive, more punitive and more militarised. Both Liberal and Labor have inflicted this cruelty. The same systemic racism that has played out so viciously for First Nations people results in prejudice against people of colour, against immigrants and results in the mistreatment of refugees again and again. Here we are, yet again. This terrible persecution of refugees goes on, and it gets worse every single time. Under this bill, refugees and stateless persons who were released into the community as a result of a High Court decision which found indefinite detention was unlawful and unconstitutional will be placed in a precarious position yet again, where they are judged and sentenced not by the court of law but by the stroke of a politician's pen. This will create a subclass of individuals who are judged not by their actions but by their visa status. But white Australia has never been shy about having one rule for it and another for people it regards as second class. Everyone in Australia should be subject to the same criminal legal system regardless of who they are, where they come from or their visa status. When people on visas are sentenced to imprisonment in Australia, they serve those sentences before being taken into immigration detention. Haven't you had enough of the fear and division? Haven't you caused enough harm and damage to these people? Now you are willing to sidestep the judicial process of the courts and challenge the very principles of equality, of democracy, of fairness and of justice that are supposed to be the bedrock of this country's legal system. At what point will you be satisfied? At what point will you see them as humans? We are told refugee policies are not racist. This is then justified by claims that it is fair, impartial and commonsense policy. We are told, 'Shouldn't those who have been patiently waiting for their turn in a queue get priority, rather than those jumping the queue?' We also told, 'Shouldn't we protect our national identity and Australian culture from those who are so very different to us?' And so the real racist agenda emerges, marginalising people who fall outside the very narrow conception of what it is to be one of us. Labor's decision to fast-track this draconian legislation is yet another capitulation to Mr Peter Dutton's fearmongering and dog whistling. Now you are even writing the amendments for the Liberal Party and going to introduce them, doing their dirty work. This Labor government has no shame whatsoever. But having now seen the depths of Labor's inhumanity in refusing to call for a ceasefire in Gaza when thousands upon thousands of children and civilians are being killed by Israel, sadly, I am not surprised at Labor's lack of human decency and sense of justice for refugees. In both cases Labor is showing complete disregard of its international obligations and its moral responsibility. That is how low the Labor Party has sunk. There is still time to wake up, Labor—there is still time. Stop trampling on human rights and stop persecuting refugees. 17:52 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I want to echo the comments of my colleagues in this debate, each and every one of them. What we are seeing with this bill is Labor and the coalition engaging in a Murdoch fuelled cruelty contest—that is what this is—and using dozens and dozens of refugees, people who came to this country seeking our protection, as political pawns in their contest of cruelty to see who can have the least principles. We're seeing who can place politics above principle and decency in the most shameful possible way. For the Labor government, with all the resources of government behind it, led by the scruff of the neck by the ugliest, nastiest parts of the coalition in responding to the High Court judgement says so much about Labor. Labor are so desperate not to be seen as having any gap between them and the coalition that they've become the coalition when it comes to this policy. Not only could Dutton have written the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 and the amendments to it, but the amendments actually have been written by Dutton. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, I remind you to refer to members of the other place by their correct titles. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 They literally have been read by Mr Dutton. They have been written by Mr Dutton. He wrote the amendments to add that little spice of cruelty to Labor's already offensive bill. This is an obscene act against people who've just got a little sliver of liberty. But it is an even more obscene political surrender by Labor to the coalition. The coalition must be wondering why they bother having a two-party system in this place. Why don't you just join together? Why don't you become the one big cruelty party and have a big cruelty party every time you come here to work out which particular group in society you can be cruellest to together? This week it just happens to be refugees. They're the part of society, the least powerful, that you've come together to be as cruel as you possibly can be towards because you think it will play well with the Murdoch media—because you think it will play well with a bunch of right-wing shock jocks. Why not just become a single 'party of cruelty' and be done with the pretence? Because that's what it is—and to watch you do this! And where has the Attorney-General been in all of this? I am sure that there are people of good conscience in Labor who are revolted by what is happening, notionally in their name. I feel certain that the Attorney-General would be deeply offended by what this bill does and deeply offended by the dozen amendments that do things like put in mandatory sentencing, because it goes against his nature. But it's one thing to privately take offence to it. What would show courage would be to come out and say it. We just saw 56 members of the UK Labour Party speak out against their leader when he was supporting a cruel position on Palestine, and they took a hit for it. A number of them knew that that meant they had to surrender their frontbench positions. They took the hit because, for them, it was a step too far. It was a step too far against their principles and their views of the cruel nature of Labour's policy in that regard in the UK. How can it be that not one single member of the Labor Party here is willing to do the same on this offensive bill but will literally take the politics of Tampa and the cruelty and the ugliness that that led our country into for two decades, stick in the microwave and reheat it for 2023? How could nobody in the federal Labor Party say no to that and publicly take a stand? Where's Minister Giles on this? I feel pretty sure that this offends a bunch of his principles of decency. But it's no good to be privately offended and then publicly back in this cruel system. That doesn't help a single refugee. That just further drives our politics down Peter Dutton's path. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge— Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Mr Dutton's path. The PRESIDENT 112096 I've drawn it to your attention now two or three times. Please refer to those in the other place by their correct titles. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 How could you allow your party, the Labor Party, to be driven by, literally, the politics of Suella Braverman here—that's what you're doing—and not have one of you stand up and say no? Not one single member of the federal Labor Party has said no to this. Why are you here? Why don't you just join the big 'cruelty party' and make it just a single party? What's the purpose of Labor if all they do is implement Mr Peter Dutton's ugly policies? What's the purpose? You changed the government and changed nothing else. The coalition can sit there grinning like Cheshire cats because you are just implementing their policy and you've done it within 48 hours of the High Court delivering its decision. They thought they were in opposition, but it turns out, when it comes to this, they're in bloody government. Millions of people voted to move them out, and you've just reinstalled them. Why are you here if it's just to deliver what they would have delivered anyhow before the election, only with maybe a slightly calmer social media spin on it—maybe slightly less celebratory but the same core policy. Why are you here? When it comes to the mandatory sentencing provisions that you're going to tack onto this—handed to you by Mr Peter Dutton, drafted by Mr Peter Dutton, but delivered by Labor—what does Labor's own national policy platform say about that? The publicly available 2021 national policy for Labor says this: Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. In substituting the decisions of politicians for those of judges, mandatory sentencing undermines the independence of the judiciary. It leads to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice. Mandatory sentencing does not reduce crime, and leads to perverse consequences that undermine community safety, such as by making it more difficult to successfully prosecute criminals. That's your own platform. That's Labor's 2021 national policy platform. What is Labor doing now? You're about to put in place Mr Peter Dutton's mandatory sentencing provisions for refugees—because you think refugees are powerless, because you think it's okay to attack them and because you're even willing to sell your own national policy platform to just have a go at a powerless group in society because it works for you politically. It works for you politically to have an answer to a shock jock on 2GB. You just junk your own national platform. It's not as though we have to go back to 2021. We recently saw the so-called festival of democracy and the media show which was the 2023 Labor National Convention. You all came together and had a draft new national policy platform this year. You had a pretend little debate about AUKUS as though you cared, and then you adopted this on mandatory sentencing in 2023, the same year that you're about to legislate Mr Peter Dutton's ugly little mandatory sentencing provisions on your bill here against refugees. This is what Labor said in their 2023 draft national platform: Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. This practice does not reduce crime but does undermine the independence of the judiciary, lead to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice. That's true. What Labor said on their national platform is true in 2023 and 2021. What's not true is everything that's come out of the mouth of the Prime Minister about that in the last 48 hours. What's not true is the offensively false, discriminatory, unjust language that's come out of Labor in the last 24 hours, backing in the coalition's mandatory sentencing provisions for refugees. What you've said in the last 48 hours is what's not true. You know it's not true. You know it's wrong. You know it's discriminatory. You know it undermines the judiciary. And you're still going to do it. Why are you here? Why don't you just join the coalition? Why don't you just make your big cruelty party and be done with the pretence on this? Why are you here? You say one thing before the election. You get elected on a platform. You say mandatory sentencing's wrong. You say it's unjust. You say it undermines the judiciary. Then, when you get elected and you finally sit on the government benches, you legislate for mandatory sentencing against refugees. Why are you here? Why do you keep lying to the electorate in election campaigns and then govern just like the coalition? Why are you here? Where is the single member of the Labor Party that's going to stand up for your own national platform? Not one of you. Why are you here? You're doing all of this—this festival of cruelty with your mates from the coalition—before you've even read the judgement of the High Court. You don't even have the judgement of the High Court. You're probably just going to create yet another unconstitutional holy mess, and grind refugees and their families through another unconstitutional holy mess, just because you want to deliver in a time frame that suits Mr Peter Dutton. Why are you here? The idea that you could craft legislation to address what the High Court has found about two decades of systemic cruelty—that you could provide and craft a legislative response to it—before the High Court has even delivered its reasons is so obviously wrong. You know it won't work. You're no doubt being advised about this legislation by the same lawyers that were telling you that you were going to win the High Court case and saying: 'Don't worry about it. You don't need a plan B.' The same lawyers who've lost the High Court case, who obviously didn't understand the constitutional constraints around executive punishment and cruelty, are no doubt drafting this piece of legislation before the High Court has even delivered its reasons showing why they were wrong. Do you seriously expect this next little cooked-up piece of executive cruelty to survive a High Court challenge? It's not actually even about being lawful. It's not even about pretending to be lawful. It's about delivering a political hit job on refugees because it's convenient to you to keep the shock jocks and Mr Peter Dutton off your back. Why are you here? So of course we're going to vote against this bill. But, of course, the combined parties of cruelty are going to come together and ram it through without any committee process, without the benefit of the reasons for the decision of the High Court, because that's what you do. 18:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank those who have contributed to this debate. The Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 proposes urgent amendments to the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations to support the effective management of noncitizens released from immigration detention following the decision of the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor. While the Commonwealth argued that previous detention settings were constitutionally valid, the High Court's decision requires the release of NZYQ and similarly affected people from immigration detention. Let me be clear: the safety of the Australian community is an absolute priority for the Australian government. While the High Court has not yet handed the reasons for its decision, noncitizens affected by the NZYQ decision are being released on removal-pending bridging visas as a result of the High Court's order. Removal-pending visa holders are all subject to a range of conditions, including key reporting and security conditions. Importantly, the removal-pending visa includes requirements for the person to cooperate and to facilitate their removal from Australia. The Australian community also expects that noncitizens who do not meet the requirements for migration to Australia will not undertake activities or engage in further criminal offending that harms the community and could prejudice the Australian government's ability to facilitate their removal from Australia. As has been reported publicly, the NZYQ case load includes certain individuals with serious criminal histories. The government is working with state and territory criminal justice agencies, who have primary responsibility for community safety. This collaboration is underpinned by an enduring law enforcement engagement mechanism, which was established before any individuals other than the plaintiff in the High Court case had been released. It has also supported NZYQ affected people to move into state and territory post-offending programs where appropriate. Let me be absolutely clear: depending on the nature of the offending and the circumstances of the individual, the government is working to ensure the individuals are managed appropriately under the relevant legal frameworks. The measures outlined in this bill are proposed to complement and strengthen existing safeguards. Specifically, the government is proposing to amend the Migration Act to include appropriate amendments to the bridging visa conditions to protect the community, to increase monitoring capabilities and reporting obligations, and to secure ongoing engagement with the Department of Home Affairs. Some of these conditions will have mandatory reporting obligations and discretionary curfew and monitoring requirements, which will be imposed only where necessary to protect the safety of the community. New criminal offences will also apply for failing to comply with these reporting and monitoring conditions. These amendments are proposed to apply to all existing and future NZYQ affected noncitizens. The government proposes new, stringent visa conditions. These new conditions include a discretionary requirement for the visaholder to wear an electronic monitoring device as directed by the minister and a requirement to comply with the electronic device condition. The purpose of this condition is to protect the community where an individual is assessed as posing an unacceptable risk of harm to the community, and the monitoring device supports ongoing monitoring, which will keep the community safe. Electronic monitoring will also assist in preventing people from disengaging or avoiding engagement with the government, which would hamper efforts to facilitate their removal. It provides an alternative means of encouraging compliance that will be more suitable in circumstances where additional support alone will not prevent offending. The bill also includes a discretionary requirement for the visaholder to adhere to a curfew for the hours specified by the minister at the location notified to the department, as required. These conditions would only be imposed for the minimum number of days required to support community safety according to the specific circumstances and only where appropriate with regard to the community safety risk posed by the visaholder. This is consistent with the legitimate objective of community safety and the rights and interests of the public, especially vulnerable members of the public. To be clear, the conditions relating to electronic monitoring and the curfew—and I know we are continuing to discuss this with members of the opposition, but as the bill is drafted relating to electronic monitoring and the curfew, there are proposed discretionary conditions. They will be imposed where necessary for the protection of the community. Where appropriate, the conditions may be revoked. Other conditions developed for the NZYQ case load are mandatory, including a requirement for the visaholder to seek approval before doing any work with vulnerable people. This includes work with children. There is a requirement for the visaholder to notify the government of a change in finances, including any significant transactions, debts or income. There is a requirement for the visaholder to notify the government of changes in accommodation circumstances, including providing the details of any persons residing in the visaholder's household. There is a requirement for the visaholder to notify the government about any membership or association with any club or organisation. There is a requirement for the visaholder to notify the government of associations with any individual, group, entity or organisation alleged, known or reported to be engaged in criminal or illegal activities. There is a requirement for the visaholder to notify the government about any interstate or overseas travel. These conditions are essential for ensuring the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Border Force remain aware of the noncitizen's location, activities and associations and that the visaholder remains engaged so that they are available for removal as soon as possible as soon as removal is reasonably practicable. The bill proposes that the breach of these conditions would be a criminal offence. Ordinarily, a visaholder who does not comply with the condition of their visa may be considered for visa cancellation on the basis of that breach and, if cancelled, would be liable to be detained as an unlawful noncitizen. For the NZYQ affected cohort, immigration detention is not an available option. As such, the prospect of visa cancellation for the breach of a visa condition is not an effective deterrent against noncompliance with reporting requirements. Establishing new offences for NZYQ affected visaholders sends a clear message about the importance of compliance with requirements to report to the Department of Home Affairs and to notify of changes in circumstances. These new offences relate to mandatory visa reporting conditions, compliance with a curfew and compliance with wearing an electronic device. Each of the offences would only be enforced following due consideration of the circumstances of the case. This recognises that they are designed to support a proportionate response in circumstances where the non-citizen attempts to deliberately or repeatedly evade contact and monitoring with the Department of Home Affairs. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of five years and equivalent penalty units to address serious and repeated cases of noncompliance. Importantly, the offences also encourage compliance with conditions that help to ensure the noncitizen engages appropriately in removal processes. It's reasonable to expect that removal-pending visaholders will cooperate with the authorities to facilitate their removal from Australia if and when that becomes possible. The evidentiary burden for establishing a reasonable defence for failure to comply with conditions will sit with the noncitizen. The standard defences available in the Criminal Code would also apply. By establishing an offence specifically for NZYQ affected bridging visa holders, the government is making clear that compliance with conditions and ongoing engagement with the Department of Home Affairs is of critical importance. This includes in-person reporting and reporting by other means. It also includes notifying the Department of Home Affairs of changes of circumstances to give both the department and the Australian Border Force continuing visibility of the visa holder's movements and circumstances. This reporting will also help to ensure the noncitizen is available as soon as the visa holder's removal from Australia becomes practicable. It is critical that these arrangements are enacted through an amendment to the Migration Act, and it will remove any doubt that these new laws apply to both current and future NZYQ affected cases. Pending passage and commencement of these measures, new visas will be granted to this cohort with the new conditions imposed. This will occur by operation of the law. In essence, this means the original visa ceases completely and is replaced by a new visa that must be held, with the mandatory conditions automatically imposed. The government will continue to work through the implications of the High Court judgement, and the ongoing engagement of the visa holders is necessary to support this process. The government is also considering additional visa conditions that may be developed to apply to the NZYQ affected cohort over the medium and longer term to strengthen the Australian government's monitoring capabilities and to reinforce expectations about their conduct in the Australian community. The amendments we are proposing today enable the conditions imposed by way of ceasing the existing visa and granting new ones. The overarching objective is to bolster the existing framework and ensure an enduring and appropriately robust framework for the management of NZYQ affected noncitizens. In closing, I note that the High Court's decision has significant implications for immigration compliance and for the community protection objectives of the government. While it is important that we enact this legislation as a priority, further safeguards are being considered. Community protection remains a fundamental priority, and the measures included in this bill are fundamental for providing the legislative framework to support this outcome. I thank other members for their contributions on the bill, and I also acknowledge that there will be amendments to be moved in the committee stage that are being finalised now in discussions between the government and the opposition. I commend the bill to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the bill now be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [18:21]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

32 AYES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 97 18:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In my opening comments in the committee stage, I want to talk through the amendments that the Leader of the Opposition this morning put forward to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Richard Marles. We put forward a series of amendments. In fact, there were six policy proposals that we put forward. In the first instance, why did we do that? As I said in my speech earlier today, the coalition has always believed that the first priority of the federal government is to ensure the nation's security and defence. At 7.15 this morning, when Senator Paterson, Mr Tehan, Mr Dutton and I were first presented with the legislation that is now before the Senate, it became apparent on first glance that there were serious deficiencies in relation to the areas where amendments were then put forward. So, in a constructive manner, the coalition went away and had a further look at the explanatory memorandum and the proposed legislation, and we were able to come forward with six policy proposals that we have presented to the government. I will read through those policy proposals shortly. The government would understand and would indeed acknowledge that, unlike the opposition, the government have the benefit of the Attorney-General's Department and the drafters and the lawyers within the department—all very good lawyers, I may add as a former Attorney-General—and they also have the benefit of the Solicitor-General. So, whilst we were able to provide the government with the initial drafting of the amendments, the government have chosen to take on board those amendments, and they themselves will now be presenting five of the six amendments to the chamber. As I said, they have the benefit of the Attorney-General's Department, the lawyers within the Attorney-General's Department and the Solicitor-General. We appreciate that. We understand that the amendments are currently being drafted by the government, and they will be presented to the chamber later on this evening. If I could briefly go through the amendments: the first one was an amendment in relation to making curfew and electronic monitoring conditions mandatory and not discretionary. If you go to page 41 of the explanatory memorandum, it takes you through some new discretionary conditions that will be imposed by the government. But, if you go to page 15 of the explanatory memorandum, you will see a number of mandatory conditions that are now going to be imposed by the government. The question that we had was: if you truly believe in keeping Australians safe, what is the reason that the curfew and the electronic monitoring conditions are not mandatory? The amendment that we put forward would see the government make the curfew and electronic monitoring conditions mandatory and not discretionary. As I said, we put forward the policy proposal. The government has had a look at it. The proposal that is coming back to us is not as strong as our proposal, but, as I said, we support the intent of what the government is doing with our proposal, and we will be supporting the amendment. In relation to amendment No. 2, we put forward a policy proposal requiring a visa holder not to perform work or participate in any regular organised activity that involves contact with children, other than contact of a minor or incidental nature. Currently, this is permissible with the minister's permission. This is in relation to condition 8613. Again, if you take this seriously and if you do believe your No. 1 responsibility to Australians is to keep them safe, then we would say that the policy proposal that we have put forward—for them not to perform work, as opposed to being able to seek the minister's permission to perform work—is an appropriate one. In relation to amendment No. 3, we again put forward a proposal, because it was seriously lacking in the bill, to require a visa holder not go within 150 metres of a school, child care or daycare centre. Why would we do that? When you have a look at the nature of the offences that were committed by the people that are now out on our streets, the plaintiffs themselves, one of them has been convicted of raping a 10-year-old child. They're also murderers, contract killers and those that have perpetrated the most vile domestic violence offences. I have to ask the government: on what planet do you think this should not be included, in particular when you say the purpose of many of your amendments is to support community safety? I would have thought the amendment we have put forward and the policy proposal we've put forward to the government will do that. In relation to the fourth policy proposal we put forward, ensuring each day of a breach of a visa condition is treated as a separate offence rather than a single continuous breach, I was surprised when I went to page 14 of the explanatory memorandum, point 59, in relation to the application of the Crimes Act. It states: … that an ongoing breach of a condition to do an act or thing within a specified period or by a specified time will constitute a single offence, rather than multiple offences for each day in which there is a failure to comply. The proposal we put to the government is to ensure that they are treated as separate offences rather than a single continuous breach. We've had discussions with the government in relation to the effect that would have on a minimum mandatory sentence, and I understand that a compromise was reached. Again, we thank the government for working with us and for the compromise I understand will be delivered to the chamber later this evening. In relation to amendment No. 5 in the policy proposal we put forward and the drafting of the amendment we put forward to the government, if the visa holder has been convicted of an offence involving violence or sexual assault, it would allow the minister to impose a condition requiring no contact with the victim or the victim's family. A decision to impose a no-contact condition is one that we believe is appropriate. Again, the government say they've put forward the strongest conditions they could avail themselves of, but, when Senator Paterson and I reviewed the conditions, we believed that there was certainly room for improvement. In relation to those five amendments, Mr Dutton presented the policy proposals and drafting to the Acting Prime Minister at the time, Mr Marles. Obviously, Mr Marles made a statement in the House of Representatives today, and Senator Wong followed that statement that Mr Marles made with a statement in the Senate. As I said, the government, having the benefit of the Attorney-General's Department, having the benefit of the legal drafters in the Attorney-General's Department and certainly having the benefit of the Solicitor-General's advice, has undertaken to look at the drafting and provide us with new amendments reflecting the policy options we have put forward in the discussions that Mr Marles and Mr Dutton have had. We look forward to seeing those amendments later this evening and to the government supporting those amendments as they will be putting them forward. In relation to amendment No. 6, this is to establish a mandatory minimum sentence for the offences in the bill. The one thing that really stood out when Senator Paterson and I reviewed the bill and the explanatory memorandum is that the sentencing options that the government had placed in its initial drafting did not exclude anything else—in other words, for example, could you get a suspended sentence? It was a maximum sentence, yes, but there was no mention of a minimum sentence or the exclusion of lesser penalties. I'm pleased that Mr Marles made the statement in the House of Representatives because I know that the Prime Minister would not have done this. I congratulate the then Acting Prime Minister for accepting that the Labor Party will vote for establishing mandatory minimum sentences. The CHAIR 287062 Senator McKim, on a point of order? Senator McKim JKM Senator Cash is referring to amendments that have not been circulated and are not before the chamber. I ask you whether she is being relevant to the question before the chamber or she is in fact pre-empting a matter that the chamber is yet to be aware of. The CHAIR 287062 I have been listening carefully to Senator Cash. She is referring to policy positions that she will be seeking to have amended, so I think it is relevant. Senator CASH I0M I congratulate the Acting Prime Minister and the Labor Party, in the absence of the Prime Minister, for agreeing with the coalition's proposal to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. Certainly we believe that this shows the outmost— The CHAIR 287062 Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM It's the same point of order. Senator Cash is now clearly referring to the Liberals' proposal to make an amendment in regard to mandatory minimum sentences, which obviously is against Labor Party policy, but we'll leave that aside for now. I again ask you to make a ruling on relevance. The CHAIR 287062 Firstly, we are in committee and the committee is a free-ranging debate. Members in this instance can even flag they will amend, Senator McKim. I think the member is entitled to speak as the senator has done in this instance. Senator CASH I0M It shows the outmost seriousness with which we take the requirements to comply with the conditions for each offence, and in relation to that we believe that a minimum mandatory sentence is appropriate. The CHAIR 287062 Senator McKim, I will give priority to the minister. I note that you wish the call, and I will give you the call next. 18:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I won't be terribly long, so Senator McKim will have an opportunity to say something. I want to briefly respond. I welcome the constructive discussions that have occurred over the course of today between members of the government and members of the opposition. This has been a challenging episode for all Australians to deal with, with the High Court making the decision that overturned 20 years of accepted precedent. As is obviously known, the government introduced legislation to deal with the matter today. The opposition raised a number of issues that they thought needed to be addressed. We've always made clear that we wanted to ensure that we could deal with this issue as quickly as we possibly could, and we were willing to work with the opposition to address some of the issues they raised in order to have legislation passed so as to deal with this issue as quickly as possible. One of the other things we've had to take into consideration was the constitutionality of any legislation that was introduced or further amendments that were considered. It has been somewhat more difficult to prepare legislation and ensure the constitutionality of any amendments in the absence of the full reasons from the High Court, but we consider that it is a matter of national priority and in the national interest to ensure that legislation is introduced and passed that keeps the safety of Australians paramount. That has been one of our concerns all along through this process. I know we've heard a number of comments from the Greens party, and will no doubt continue to do so tonight, that suggests that we should not be doing what we are attempting to do in this legislation, but the simple fact is that at least the Labor Party, and it would appear the coalition parties, do recognise we do have an obligation to the Australian people to keep them safe. There are a number of people who have been released who have serious criminal records, and we owe it to the Australian public to act as quickly as we can to maintain the safety of the Australian population. That's why we have moved quickly in preparing and introducing this legislation. We have been willing to work with the opposition to pass this legislation as quickly as possible so as to assure Australians of their safety in the wake of this High Court decision which, as I said, overturned 20 years of legal precedent. I thought it was worth putting some context around what is happening here. As I say, it's been a little difficult to prepare this legislation in the absence of the reasons. But some of us do take our responsibility for national security and community safety seriously, Senator McKim. It's a matter for you and your party as to whether you place weight on that whatsoever. I look forward to us being able to consider this legislation and pass it as quickly as possible, so that the matter is dealt with. 18:39 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania What an extraordinary contribution we've just heard from Minister Watt, wringing his hands about how difficult it has been to craft this legislation in the absence of any published reasons from the High Court. Precisely, Minister! It has been difficult, which begs the obvious question: why are you jamming it through in such an unholy rush today? Why are you trampling over hard-won rights and freedoms in this country, rights and freedoms that many Australians have fought and died to protect and enhance through our nation's history, including members of my family, I might add? They fought and died to protect these rights and freedoms, and you come in here in a craven display of political cowardice because you can't stand the heat that's coming from Mr Dutton, the Liberal Party and the Murdoch press. This is the Tampa debate all over again, and this legislation is Prime Minister Albanese's Tampa moment. Just as John Howard confected an emergency when the MVTampa hove over the horizon, so has the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, confected an emergency post the High Court decision. Just as the Murdoch press cheered on Mr Howard in his xenophobia back in the days of the Tampa, so has the Murdoch press cheered on Mr Dutton, his confected emergency and his demonisation of refugees, something that he has built a political career on. Just as the Labor Party collapsed in the most craven way imaginable under Mr Howard's pressure when the MV Tampa hove over the horizon, so has Mr Albanese collapsed in the most craven, disgraceful way under pressure from Mr Dutton. Not only has that pressure driven the Labor Party to legislate in such unseemly haste that we've now got a minister up wringing his hands about how difficult it was to do it so quickly; it's got a lot worse today. We now know that the Labor Party is walking away from its election policy—its clear election policy—that it doesn't support mandatory sentencing. When you read that policy in the Australian Labor Party platform, it actually spells out why Labor doesn't support mandatory sentencing. You know what? They're very good points. They are very good points excellently made by the members of the Labor Party. How would you feel tonight if you were a member of the Australian Labor Party? You would feel gutted, because tonight the political representatives of the Australian Labor Party have sold out to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. They haven't only sold themselves out; they've sold out every single member of the Labor Party who agreed on a Labor platform that does not support mandatory sentencing. Let's make no mistake about what this bill does. This bill makes the minister into someone who can impose arbitrary punishment and arbitrary detention on innocent people: no judge, no jury, just the minister. The minister can insist that people don't leave their home. He can impose a curfew, and I do have a question for Minister Watt: is the minister able under the provisions of this act to impose a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week curfew on someone? If that is not a power that exists under this act, what is the minimum amount of time in a 24-hour period that the minister will have to allow someone to leave their home? What we're talking about here is home detention. What we're talking about with electronic monitoring is electronic detention. This is command and control, colleagues, brought to you by Mr Dutton and brought to you by the Australian Labor Party, who are too craven and too cowardly to stand up to Mr Dutton and his cheerleaders in the Murdoch press. So, it's really critical that folks understand what is happening here. The High Court of Australia has made a decision, and it has made a decision quite rightly and, I have to say, in an extremely belated fashion, following a shameful decision by the High Court many, many years ago. The High Court has finally righted that terrible wrong, and they have effectively ruled that people can no longer be held indefinitely in immigration detention on the whim of a minister. And I want to say this to people: I don't believe that Australians want to live in a country where a politician can impose a sentence of imprisonment, or effective imprisonment, on somebody—not the courts, not a judge, not a jury, but a politician—and at times, up until last week, impose an indefinite sentence of imprisonment on somebody. I believe, and the Greens believe, that Australians respect the rule of law. I and the Greens believe that Australians respect the separation of powers. And do you know what? That's really what the High Court found last week, because that wasn't a decision based on the Migration Act; that was a decision based on this document called the Constitution. Maybe the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have heard of that—the Constitution of our country. The Constitution is very clear that imposing punishment on citizens is the job of the courts, not the job of politicians. That's why I think these amendments, which will almost certainly find themselves in the High Court at some stage in the future, are likely to be struck down. I cannot recall a government that has allowed itself to be dictated to by an opposition to the degree that we have seen today. Senator McKIM JKM As Senator Hanson-Young is pointing out, Senator Cash is now the one explaining to the chamber what the amendments will be—even though, I might add, those amendments still haven't been circulated, or at least they hadn't been when I got up to begin my contribution. Senator Hanson-Young I0U No, they haven't. Senator McKIM JKM Still haven't got 'em, I'm advised; still haven't got 'em. And if you want to talk about legislating on the run, or legislating on the fly, what a prime example this is. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the Labor Party caucus, in there this morning. Senator Hanson-Young I0U I don't think they had a caucus. Senator McKIM JKM They didn't have a caucus. Maybe Labor didn't never didn't have a caucus. Maybe the caucus hasn't had a chance. Again, I wouldn't know. But the point here is that this is not the Labor Party legislating because they're scared of the impact on the community. This is the Labor Party legislating because they're scared of Mr Dutton and the Murdoch press. That's what's going on here. And I've never seen a government allow itself to be dictated to by an opposition, even to the extent of these mythical amendments that have been flagged but not yet circulated, which allegedly we're going to debate tonight and which the opposition has forced onto the Labor Party. I've never seen that in my two decades plus in politics: an opposition effectively becoming the government in such a short, terrible week in which we have dealt with this issue as a country. There's been a lot of talk about community safety. Do you want to know what the real danger to our community is? It's legislation like this. Legislation like this is a danger to our community, because it is a couple of steps too far down the pathway to tyranny. The CHAIR 287062 Thank you, Senator McKim. I'm giving the call to the minister, because a question was asked in Senator McKim's contribution. I note that Senator Hanson is seeking the call, and Senator Paterson. So, I intend to go to Senator Paterson and then give the call to Senator Hanson. Minister. 18:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland There was obviously a whole lot of rhetoric in there from the Greens party and only one question. I won't deal with all the rhetoric from the Greens party, but I certainly and utterly reject the suggestion that what we're doing here is empowering a minister to imprison someone, which Senator McKim either expressly alleged or certainly implied. That is utterly wrong. But what would you expect from the Greens party? They've never seen an opportunity to exaggerate a situation that they haven't taken. The question that was buried deep within the Greens party rhetoric, as I recall, went to the point about the minister's ability to set curfew times, effectively. The question was whether the minister had the power to impose a curfew of 24 hours on one of the people concerned, and the answer to that question is no. I refer Senator McKim to the bill itself—not to the amendments—which deals with the curfew power. Item No. 8620 on page 16 of the bill deals with the curfew power. Essentially, it says that the times that the minister can impose must not be more than eight hours apart. That answers Senator McKim's question. While I'm on my feet, I might take the opportunity to say that the reason the government is acting on the situation is that, as a result of a High Court decision which overturned 20 years of precedent, we now have a situation where a number of people have been released from detention, including convicted rapists. According to newspaper coverage that I've seen, there are some other very unsavoury characters. While, in the short time that we've had since the High Court decision, the government has taken as much action as was possible to place restrictions around the activities of those people, it is our view that more needs to be done to keep the Australian people safe than to simply take those steps that we have. If Senator McKim and the Greens party want to tell the Australian public that it's completely fine not to take further steps to limit the movements and activities of the types of people we're talking about, then I'll let him go have that debate with the Australian community. But the government, the Labor Party, have a different view. We've said that we want to get this legislation passed as quickly as we possibly can. Given the Greens party made it clear from the outset that it has no interest in working with the government to protect the Australian people in the way that we think should happen, the obvious option is for us to seek agreement with the opposition. That's why a lot of work has been undertaken over the course of today, in particular, to come up with legislation that can be passed by both chambers of this parliament so that we can take additional steps that are necessary and that the Australian community expects us to take as a government to keep them safe. That's why we hope to have this legislation passed tonight. 18:53 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I want to echo the sentiments expressed by my colleague Senator Cash earlier in thanking the government for agreeing to the six principles that we set out to strengthen this bill to make sure that the most robust protections are in place for the community from the people who have been released. I will have a question in a moment, but, before I do that, I want to flag a couple of things. I'm pleased that the government has agreed to assist the opposition with the drafting of these and with bringing them forward as amendments. I'm grateful that the government is going to move five of those six amendments. The opposition will be moving the sixth of those amendments, which is the one that relates to mandatory detention, but the government has also provided assistance to the opposition in drafting it. That is very helpful. I think this is an example of the way in which the major parties can come together in the national interest when it is necessary to do so to protect our national security and community safety. And we will ensure that this bill passes not just the Senate but also the House and that nobody leaves until this matter is dealt with and those protections can be put in place for the community, because that is what Australians would expect of us. Australians would not accept the idea that people who have committed very serious violent crimes, including sexual crimes and crimes against children, should be out in the community without any meaningful restrictions on them. This bill will, at the very least, impose some meaningful restrictions on them, and I'm grateful to that. I want to move to my question, now, and I don't mean to totally spoil the bipartisan sentiment of my previous remarks, but, Minister, I do have a question for you. After we met with the government this morning, we put on the record our concerns that the bill was not strong enough and told the government that we intended to move amendments to strengthen the bill. The Minister for Home Affairs went into the chamber and said: We are putting forward what are extremely tough conditions, and the legal advice that we have been given is that we are going as far as we can in order to manage the issues that are before us. Since the minister made that comment, the government has agreed to the opposition's suggestions in six areas to further strengthen this bill. So was it true when the minister said in the House that the government had gone as far as you could go, or was this bill able to have been strengthened and improved by the suggestions that the opposition has now put forward? 18:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The short answer is that, yes, the minister was being accurate in making those remarks, and, as I think has been pointed out to the opposition, our view is that the more amendments that are added to the legislation, the greater the constitutional risk. We have at all times tried to act in a manner that ensures that any amendments made to this legislation or to deal with this matter are constitutional. But we also recognise the need to move and get this legislation through. We are satisfied with the constitutionality of the amendments that are being put tonight, but, as I've made clear, in the absence of reasons from the High Court, we are all doing the best we can, in compliance with legal advice, to ensure that any amendments that are being considered by the chambers are constitutional. It is possible that, once the reasons of the High Court are released, adjustments might be needed to these amendments to comply exactly with those reasons. But, of course, we don't think that it's tenable to wait until those reasons are completed before we do the very best we can, in terms of legislative amendments, to keep the Australian people safe. 18:58 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I want to thank the minister for his answer and confirmation that the government believes that these amendments are constitutionally sound. I'm grateful for his cooperation. I do have some process questions as well. The High Court handed down the order for the release of NZYQ at about 4.30 pm on Wednesday 8 November. How long was it in hours after that that NZYQ was released? 18:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't have that information to hand, but we'll do our best to get it to you during the course of this debate. 18:59 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Some of my questions which flow from that are consequential. It might be useful, it might assist you, if I read those out so that any answers can be collated and brought back to the chamber. After being able to answer how long it was in hours after the ruling was handing down that NZYQ was released, I'd would also like to know: when did you prepare the legal documents necessary to release NZYQ from detention, and were those documents ready on the day of the hearing? I'd like to know when you started to prepare those documents—when you started to prepare the instruments ordering his release. 18:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Paterson. Again, we'll do our best to get that information back as quickly as we can. I note, by the way, that the amendments—at least the government amendments—have now been circulated, and I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I should make the point, though, on this point about the constitutionality of the amendments, that I can't make it any clearer than to say that we are all acting here in the absence of the High Court reasons. But that is not to say that we should do nothing until we receive those reasons. These are amendments that have been brought to us by the opposition. We are willing to enact them, agree to them and, in some cases, move them, because we have as much confidence as we possibly can about their constitutionality. But we can't be absolutely certain of that until we receive the reasons of the High Court. The alternative, which is what the Greens party proposes, is that we don't do anything, and we don't think that is a viable option in the circumstances, given the nature of the people who have been released. 19:01 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Yes, that's a very fair point, Minister, and I agree with you. It certainly would be unconscionable for the parliament to rise at the end of the year and wait until January, February, March or whenever it is that the High Court, in its wisdom, decides to hand down its reasons before we act, exposing the community to risk in the meantime. I have some further questions. I seek an update on how many of the 92 individuals identified by the Solicitor-General and the High Court last week as being a possible cohort for release have now been released. I understand that earlier today it was 84 and that there are eight who have not yet been released. Is that still correct? 19:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm advised that 84 people have been released, and that includes the plaintiff. 19:02 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Thank you. As with my other questions, these may be ones that you need to seek information on and come back to the chamber with. I'm keen to know when you started to prepare the legal documents to release those individuals, when those individuals were granted bridging visas, and whether or not that occurred before or after they were released into the community. 19:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We are happy to do our best to get that information for you as quickly as we can. 19:02 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Thank you. How many more detainees does the government anticipate will be released and, if so, when? 19:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, we'll need to gather that information for you, Senator Paterson. 19:02 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Just to clarify, I'm interested in the eight remaining people identified in the cohort of 92 by the Solicitor-General and the High Court and also the other cohort of 340 that the Solicitor-General referred to in his evidence to the High Court. On that, I cede my time to Senator Hanson. 19:03 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, in light of what the High Court's decision was—that there's no indefinite time for detention of these detainees in the detention centres—is the government going to look at a time frame? 19:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Sorry, Senator Hanson. Can I just clarify: are we willing to look at a time frame for what, exactly? 19:03 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland At the moment, the High Court has ruled that you cannot keep people in detention centres indefinitely. There's no time frame on it. Is the government looking at putting a time frame on when detainees can be kept in detention centres? 19:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Hanson, that issue, along with many others, probably can't be addressed or properly considered until we get the full reasons from the High Court. I guess what we're seeking to do with the amendments we're moving today is to put in place an interim step that offers greater protection to the Australian community than exists without the amendments. But, as I say, on that particular issue and many others, we'll need to wait until we get the High Court reasoning. 19:04 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My understanding of it is that the High Court said that as punishment you cannot keep them indefinitely. That's why they've been released from the detention centres into the public, which is a national security threat and a public threat. My understanding of that ruling is that you cannot really, in light of the High Court's decision, put anyone else into detention centres because that would come under the same ruling. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that anyone who is classified as an illegal in Australia cannot be put into detention centres because of the High Court ruling. That therefore means that anyone that comes to Australia illegally by plane or by boat then can't be put in detention centres because of the ruling of the High Court. Is it right that the Australian taxpayers must be responsible for them going into the public? 19:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Hanson, the situation isn't quite what you described. What we do know from the High Court's decision is that it applies to a very specific and relatively small group of people in immigration detention, not everyone who is in immigration detention and not everyone who is living in the community either. The decision of the High Court applies only to no-citizens of Australia for whom there is no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future and who are therefore not capable of being subject to immigration detention under certain sections of the Migration Act. In relation to the particular individual who brought the case which went to the High Court, the plaintiff in that case, that person is stateless. They are a Rohingyan refugee, and they don't have citizenship in any particular country because of the nature of disputes where they originally came from. That person has nowhere to be sent back to, just to put it simply. Similarly, you will have read the coverage on the person from Malaysia who has either been charged with or convicted of—I'm not exactly sure which—issues around what seems to be an assassination. Because of the death penalty that exists in certain countries, Australia's position is that we don't deport people in that situation. That's been a longstanding policy of Australian governments of both persuasions. There's a particular group of people in immigration detention who for one reason or another cannot be deported from Australia. It's only those people to whom the High Court decision applies. But for other immigrants to Australia who may not have a right to be here, if there is a home country that they can be deported to, they can be held in detention and then deported. Hopefully that addresses your question. We're not talking about the entire group of migrants to Australia or those in immigration detention; it's only that relatively small number of people. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 Before you resume your seat, Minister, have you moved the government amendments? Senator WATT 245759 If I haven't done so, I seek leave to move the government amendments together. Senator McKim JKM Point of order: have you asked whether leave is given to move the amendments together? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes. Senator McKim JKM No, it's not. 19:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In that case, I move government amendment No. 1 on sheet QN100: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 19), after paragraph 76B(1)(d), insert: Note: Section 4K of the Crimes Act 1914, which deals with continuing and multiple offences, applies to this offence. 19:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, if I could go back to 8 November this year, which is when the decision itself was handed down. The High Court was asked to answer six questions, and aside from the question on costs every single one of the answers given by the High Court related specifically to the plaintiff. The High Court did not make orders releasing anyone else. Could I just get you to confirm that? And the writ to release was only in relation to plaintiff NZYQ. Could I get you to just confirm that as well? 19:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That is correct, but of course the High Court, in the limited information it provided, also, if you like, set out a test that would apply for other people in a similar situation. But you're right: the orders were only in relation to that one plaintiff. 19:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The High Court considered, I understand, a cohort of 92 individuals, and the writ was in relation to plaintiff NZYQ. In the absence of the High Court's reasons, which might contain nuance or be specifically tied to the facts of the case, can I just confirm that the reason that the additional 84 detainees were released—my understanding is it is now 84, as of today—was in fact because of your interpretation of what the High Court is likely to want? 19:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Just to be clear, it's 84 in total, including the plaintiff, but the reason that those additional 83 people have been released is that their factual circumstances meet, if you like, the test that the High Court set, which was that they were noncitizens for whom there is no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future and who are therefore not capable of being subject to immigration detention. 19:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to the other individuals who have now been released, when did the government start preparing the legal documents to release those individuals? 19:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think we may have already taken that on notice from Senator Paterson, but, if it is a slightly different question, then we will obviously gather that information for you too. 19:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Perhaps I will put four questions to the minister, in the event that we need to seek legal advice in relation to the answers to the questions. My question was: when did you start preparing the legal documents to release those individuals? When were these individuals granted bridging visas? Did this occur before or after they were released into the community? 19:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm advised that all 84 people, including the plaintiff, were initially released without visas, as that was required to give effect to the High Court decision, but visas in all cases were granted within hours of their release. 19:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Did you receive legal advice prior to releasing the additional 84 individuals from detention? The writ was issued in relation to plaintiff NZYQ. The government made an assessment that the additional individuals, you have said, fall within the test that you say was set by the High Court—and I don't mean to verbal you. But what advice did the government seek to ensure whether the released persons were actually to be released before you released them into the community? 19:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What I'm advised is that, prior to their release, each person who has been released from immigration detention has had a full assessment done by the Department of Home Affairs against that test that was set by the High Court in its decision. 19:14 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Who applied for the bridging visas for these people before they were released from detention? 19:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The first point, Senator Hanson, is I'm not sure it's correct—in fact, because of the unusual circumstances here, where we had a High Court decision that effectively required these people to be released from detention, there was no application process. They didn't apply for visas in the way that people normally would. We had a High Court judgement which said that it was not legal to detain the plaintiff and a number of other people. We were required by that High Court decision to release them from detention, and visas were then arranged by the department—the minister granted each of those people a visa within hours of their release, without a formal application process in the way that would normally happen. I recognise that's an unusual situation, but that is as a result of the High Court decision. 19:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again building on the questions that Senator Hanson has asked you, we've had confirmation that the High Court did not make orders for the release of anyone else and we've had confirmation that the writ to release was only in relation to the plaintiff NZYQ. We've asked you questions about the balance of those who have now been released into the community, and you said that each one was subject to a full assessment by the Department of, I believe you said, Home Affairs prior to their release. On what basis were these people determined to be assessed? Have others also been assessed, and, if so, how many? How long did each assessment take? And I might get you to provide on notice—I accept you won't have it now—for all of them, the time that the assessment was undertaken and how long it took for each assessment. How many were released on day one and when, if you could answer those now? How many were released on day two and when? If you could answer those questions, we can get a full picture of the 84 and when they were actually released. 19:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I will need to take that entire set of questions on notice. I don't have that information readily to hand. What I am advised is that, as I said earlier, the Department of Home Affairs assessed the facts for each of the people who may have been affected by this decision. The result of that assessment led to the release of 83 people in addition to the one plaintiff. The remaining eight, I think it is, of the original 92 have been fully assessed and determined to not meet that test, or those assessments are underway. 19:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia So, for the eight that remain, you've made the assessment and you've determined that they don't fall within the test that has been set out by the High Court. In relation to— 19:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Their assessments have been either completed and determined to not meet the test or are still underway. 19:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I just then confirm that, in relation to the 84, you were satisfied that each of them could not be returned to (a) their country of origin or (b) a third country, and that that question was answered as part of the assessment. 19:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It is correct to say that the assessment of the Department of Home Affairs on which the minister relied was that those 83 people in addition to the plaintiff were noncitizens and that there was no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future. It may well be that, at some point further down the track, it will be possible for some of those people to be removed from Australia. What the court talked about was in the reasonably foreseeable future. Of course, should it become practicable, to use the wording of the High Court, to remove any of those people from Australia, then we would have the option of doing that, and that would occur. 19:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia For the benefit of the discussion we're having, what was the meaning given in terms of time frame to 'reasonably foreseeable future'? 19:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As Senator Cash would be well aware, there is a legal definition of the term 'reasonably foreseeable'. In essence, and I understand this was also based on some of the commentary of judges within the case, it is impossible to set a particular time period of five days, ten days, ten months. It's a commonsense test. It's difficult to go beyond the legal definition of the term. There isn't a precise number of days or months. 19:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I understand that there is not a precise number of days, months et cetera. Can I ask you to take on notice in relation to the 84: what was the assessment of time frame that the department utilised when making the decision in relation to each of the 84? Can you confirm whether or not legal documentation needed to be prepared in order to release each of the detainees—for example, some sort of order or instrument. If so, can you please provide the time when each of those relevant documents was prepared. If you have the information in relation to the first part of the question, though, was legal documentation required to be prepared in order to release each of the detainees? 19:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's probably safer if I take that one on notice as well. While I'm on my feet, can I provide further information to do with the matter of the granting of visas for people once they were released. All of the individuals who were required to be released by the High Court's orders have been granted Bridging (Removal Pending) visas with appropriate conditions, and law enforcement agencies have been notified of their release. As a result of the High Court orders, the detention of individuals assessed as being in scope of the test set out by the High Court is no longer authorised. As a result, those individuals must be released from immigration detention as soon as practicable. Ordinarily, a person is released into the community from detention as the result of being granted a visa. Portfolio ministers have personal powers under section 195A of the Migration Act to grant a person in immigration detention a visa if the minister thinks it's in the public interest to do so. However, as detention is no longer authorised in respect of these individuals, the minister's power under section 195A to grant a visa to the individuals is not enlivened. Of course, complying with the orders of the court is not optional and we have to give effect to the decision made. In order to comply with the High Court orders, individuals in the scope must be released from immigration detention as soon as practicable. All of the individuals required to be released by the High Court's orders have been granted Bridging (Removal Pending) visas with appropriate conditions, and law enforcement agencies have been notified of their release. 19:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to the use of the term 'as soon as practicable', what did the department consider to be 'as soon as practicable'? 19:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, my understanding is that there were no particular time frames set so that they would have to be released within a certain number of hours, minutes, weeks or days, but I would imagine—and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong here—that the way the department approached this was that, once the assessments of those individuals were completed and whatever legal or other formalities and paperwork were completed, then those people would be released straightaway because that was what the High Court decision required. I understand the plaintiff, for example, was released within an hour of the High Court decision being handed down. We're talking about hours, as soon as those procedural steps could be taken. 19:25 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Since their release, I'd like to know who is paying the bill for their accommodation and their bridging visas. Who is paying for all this, and for how long is this going to happen? 19:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, bearing in mind that there was no option but to release these people from detention given the High Court's decision, the Australian government has borne the cost of, for example, SRSS, status resolution support services, payments, and the Australian government has borne the cost of transitional housing for the people who have been released. Of course, it's worth also remembering that, had those people remained in detention, the Australian government would have borne those costs as well. 19:27 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland In that case, if you've borne the expense of their accommodation, how long will the government be paying for their accommodation? What's the time frame? 19:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm advised that the costs for transitional housing that are being borne by the Australian government last for 12 weeks. That is the position that has existed under governments of both sides of politics. 19:28 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My information, given to me from Australians who actually end up leaving prison after their crimes, is that they possibly may get two weeks of assistance. Some of them don't. They're shown out the door of the prisons, and then they actually have to go and find their own accommodation. They don't give them transport—absolutely nothing. You are saying that for three months the government will pick up the bill for these absolute animals in our society. That is appalling. Why is there such a disparity between Australians who actually have been released from prison and those in detention centres? 19:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Obviously, decisions around the terms and payments that are made to Australian citizens when they are released from jail are a matter for state and territory governments because state and territory governments run the prison system and administer those types of payments. I don't know what amounts are paid by state and territory governments, and I suspect they probably differ between the states and territories. Again, I would remind you that had these people remained in detention, as was the intention prior to the High Court's decision, that would have been at the cost of the Australian government as well. 19:29 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, given this bill has been required because of the orders of the High Court in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, can you assure this chamber of whether or not this bill is consistent with the judgement in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the reasoning of the High Court? 19:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As you're aware, we have very limited information from the High Court at this point in time on which to base decisions around the release of these individuals, the precautions we place around these individuals in their release, and the drafting of legislation. What we have attempted to do with this legislation—the original legislation introduced by the government and the amendments that have been proposed by the opposition, which are now being moved in some cases by the government and in some cases by the opposition—is to abide by that limited information that the High Court has provided, also taking into account other drafting principles and constitutional law requirements that sit outside that High Court decision. I'm not sure if you were in the chamber, Senator Shoebridge, when I made the point that there does remain a degree of constitutional risk around the amendments that are being proposed, in particular around some of the further amendments the opposition has put forward, but our view was that the most important thing to do here was to pass legislation through the parliament which provided the Australian people with the level of protection that they would expect from their governments and from their parliaments, considering the background of some of the individuals who have been released. We believe that the amendments that we're proposing do satisfy these constitutional tests, but until we receive the reasons from the High Court there is obviously a level of constitutional risk around them. That doesn't mean we do nothing, because we think that, in addition to the precautions and the conditions that we've placed around the release of these individuals, further action is necessary to assure the Australian people of their safety. 19:32 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, you referred to the orders of the High Court and then to other information from the High Court. What is this other information from the High Court in relation to NZYQ that you're referring to? 19:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't think I did say 'other information from the High Court'. What I think I said was 'other drafting principles'. Obviously, when legislation is prepared, whether it be on this or any other matter, we don't just take into account a particular decision or particular reasons of the High Court. As you would understand, there are general drafting principles and there is a whole body of constitutional law that goes to what parliaments can and can't legislate on. Those matters have been taken into account to the best of our ability, while recognising that in the absence of the reasons from the High Court there remains a degree of uncertainty. As I say, we don't think that that uncertainty should mean that the parliament does nothing. 19:34 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, isn't it true that in the absence of the reasons from the High Court, you're just having a stab in the dark about the constitutionality of this bill? 19:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland No, that's not correct, Senator Shoebridge, and I'm sure that that will be the first of many such suggestions from you. What we are doing here is presenting legislation and considering and accepting and in some cases moving amendments that have been brought forward by the opposition. We are acting on the basis of the best possible advice that we've been able to obtain about the constitutionality of these amendments. But I've repeatedly made clear, and I'll do it again now, that there does remain a degree of constitutional risk. The alternative, which seems to be the position of the Greens party, is that we don't move legislation and that, despite the efforts the government has made since this decision was handed down to protect the Australian people—put conditions around the individuals released, worked with state and territory authorities to ensure that people are monitored and other things—from the moment of the release of these individuals, we accept and have always accepted that there remains some risk to Australians' safety and that the government has an obligation to protect its people. I would have thought that all parliamentarians would see that as an important responsibility. So, it's fine for you to come in here and effectively say that we shouldn't move until we have the reasons of the High Court and full constitutional authority and reasoning on which to act. We don't think this is a matter that should wait until that occurs. 19:35 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, thank you for your answer, a number of answers ago, in relation to that further information about exactly how the detainees were released, when they were released and when the bridging visas were granted to them. Just for the plain-English understanding of anyone watching, just so I'm clear: some people were released and then some time later visas were issued to them. In other words, there was a period of time in which they were in the community with no visas and therefore no restrictions? 19:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can't really add to what I said earlier on this matter. But everyone who's been released into the community has been granted a visa. That was done within hours of their release. And, as I said, there was a High Court decision requiring the release of these individuals. 19:36 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria What was the largest amount of time that elapsed between a detainee being released and a visa being issued to them? 19:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'd have to take that on notice as well. 19:37 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria A lawyer acting for some of the detainees, Mr David Mann, seemed to indicate that in some instances there were detainees who'd been released who had no visas for a couple of days. Is that correct? 19:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I've taken on notice the maximum period of time. I don't have any information one way or another on what Mr Mann has said. 19:37 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria When I put those questions to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong, in question time this week, she denied that there was any period in which people were released in the community without restrictions based on the visas that were issued to them. Can we rely on the minister's answer, or on what you've just told us? 19:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can't really add to anything I have already said on the matter, Senator Paterson. 19:37 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Minister, we've recently found out that over the last six to nine months the people who were left on Nauru, apart from the 11 who have shown up on a boat in the last two weeks, have been released off Nauru over that six to nine months. My estimation is that there are between 58 and 73 of them. Were they put in detention here? Were they brought from Nauru and put in detention here? Or were they let straight out into the streets? 19:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Lambie, I'll have to come back to you on that. Obviously the officials we have here tonight have been fully occupied working on this legislation, and they can assist me in providing answers to questions about the legislation, but your question obviously goes beyond this legislation. But I'm happy to come back to you on that. 19:38 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Are there any of those people who have been in detention who have been released now and had been there for less than nine months? 19:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I'll have to take that one on notice. 19:39 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, given that the published 2021 national policy platform for Labor and the draft 2023 national policy platform for Labor oppose mandatory sentencing, on the basis that it produces unjust outcomes and undermines the judiciary, why are you supporting the coalition's amendment to put in place a mandatory sentence and imprisonment of one year for breach of certain provisions of this bill? 19:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As we've made clear repeatedly throughout this debate both today and on previous days, the safety of the community is of the utmost priority for the Albanese government. The opposition has flagged an amendment to mandatory minimum sentences in respect of those who breach the conditions of their visas. This, amongst other amendments, we believe is necessary to address the situation that's been presented to us by the High Court, and that's why we will be supporting the amendment that's being moved by the opposition. 19:40 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales How are mandatory sentences, which your own national platform says undermine the judiciary and produce unjust outcomes, necessary for the purposes of this bill? 19:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I refer to my previous answer. 19:40 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, do you acknowledge that the coalition's amendments that make the bill more punitive and more aggressive in terms of the punishments that can be delivered against refugees make it more likely that it will fail the constitutional test? 19:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not going to accept any proposition like that from you. I have on several occasions now outlined that what the government is seeking to do here is to address a situation which has arisen from a decision of the High Court. We respect the decisions of our courts and we deal with their implications. We have, as quickly as we possibly can, introduced legislation to deal with this situation. The opposition has indicated that they believe certain amendments are necessary to that legislation. We will do the utmost we can to have this legislation passed as quickly as we can, and that obviously requires working with the opposition to consider those amendments, because the Greens Party has demonstrated that they have no interest whatsoever in working with the government to address this situation. We don't believe that it is acceptable to let that situation continue if we're doing the most we possibly can for the safety of the Australian community. 19:42 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, you say that you 'respect the decisions of the court'. What does the decision in the most recent High Court case of NZYQ v the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, which is the whole basis for you moving this bill, say about the constitutionality of your bill? You say you respect the decision, but you don't even wait for it. 19:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The decision that the High Court handed down has very little to say about the constitutionality of these amendments because the High Court wasn't aware of the amendments that are being proposed. What the High Court said was that the noncitizens for whom there is no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future and who are therefore not capable of being subject to immigration detention needed to be released from detention. The government has done that out of respect for the High Court's decision, so, when I'm talking about having respect for the court's decision, that's what we've done. The High Court handed down the decision. We have implemented that decision. We have released each of the people who have been assessed as meeting that test from the High Court. But I've readily acknowledged that there's a degree of constitutional risk here. But, as I say, the alternative is to do nothing. That seems to be what the Greens party position is, and we don't believe that that's what the Australian people would expect from this parliament. 19:44 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, do you or those advising you understand the difference between 'orders' of a court and the 'decision' of a court, which is its judgement? 19:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Shoebridge, I know that in your very short time in this chamber you have established yourself as the smartest person in the chamber, and we repeatedly endure your demonstration of your superior intellect in the general chamber and in estimates committee hearings, but it may surprise you to learn that you're not the only person in this chamber who has legal qualifications. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 There is a point of order, Minister. Please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, a point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 The minister is required to answer the question, not to make his smug little character assassinations, like he was just doing then—his smug, nasty, personal slights. They are not in order. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, have you finished your answer? Senator WATT 245759 Senator Shoebridge, if senators were prevented from making smug and nasty remarks in this chamber then you would have very little to say. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, Minister—would you resume your seat. Senator McKim, do you have a point of order? Senator McKim JKM Yes, it is a point of order, and it's that personal reflections on another senator are disorderly, and Minister Watt should withdraw those personal reflections. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator McKim. Senator Watt used exactly the words that Senator Shoebridge himself used, so if Senator Shoebridge and the minister would be kind enough to withdraw their remarks then we can move on. Senator Shoebridge 169119 I withdraw. Senator WATT 245759 I also withdraw. Leaving the free character assessment that's going on at the moment aside—Senator Shoebridge, I can assure you that, as someone who has practised law over a number of years, as have many other senators in this chamber, I very much understand the distinction between reasons and orders. We don't need you coming in and giving us a superior, intellectual lecture about things that many of us know very well. 19:46 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I was just wondering what number of those people who have been released were initially in detention because they were under the proviso of being a national security risk. 19:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland None of the individuals were considered to be a security risk in that way. 19:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I'm not quite sure you heard my question, sorry, Minister. Were they initially put in detention because they were classified as a national security risk or a security risk? 19:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The short answer is no. There's an alternative regime that applies for people who are considered to be a national security risk—the preventive detention order. In general terms, the people who were in detention that this judgement applied to and that have now been released essentially failed a character test because they were convicted of other crimes or had been charged with very serious crimes, or because for some other reason they failed a character test, as opposed to the reasons you're putting forward. 19:47 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I have two questions for you, Minister. Firstly, can you confirm that the discretionary conditions able to be applied to bridging visas R by the minister that relate to curfew and electronic detention are able to be applied to people who have committed no crime whatsoever in Australia? Could you confirm that one first, please? Secondly, Minister, I did receive some information from Minister Giles, and I want to place on the record that I thank him and his staff and departmental officers for their briefing this morning. Some information was conveyed to me around appeal rights. I just wonder if you wouldn't mind placing on the record the appeal rights in terms of judicial review, firstly, around the minister's decision to apply discretionary provisions. I'm particularly interested in the curfew and electronic surveillance conditions. Secondly, can you put on the record any judicial review that is available once the minister decides not to change or vary those conditions, having been asked. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me. My understanding is: in regard to the minister's original decision, there is a judicial review available but not a merits review. It is simply a review in terms of a potential error in law that the minister might have made. However, if the minister refuses an application to remove or vary those conditions, that decision is appellable not only in terms of law but also on the merits of the decision. I'm wondering if you could step us through those judicial review provisions, please. 19:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland To your first question, the powers that you were talking about can be invoked for any of the people who have been released. I don't have the details of each of those individuals and whether they've all been convicted of a crime or not, but I would point out that the entire reason that those individuals were in detention in the first place was because they had failed a character test, because, in many cases, they had committed crimes. In some cases, there may have been other reasons—in all cases very good reasons—that they failed that character test. Because I don't have the factual circumstances of all 84 people, I can't give you information as to whether all of them have committed a crime and therefore are subject to these powers. To your second question, I am advised that the decisions of the minister that are being presented in both the original legislation and the amendments are judicially reviewable. Does that— Senator McKim JKM The question was about merits review. Is it based on merits— Senator WATT 245759 Yes—or error in law. Let me just take some advice on that. I'm advised that the original decision of the minister to impose conditions is judicially reviewable, so that goes to matters of procedure rather than merits. The decision the minister makes about that point can then be reviewed on both error-of-law grounds and merits grounds. 19:52 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, I want to follow up your answer to Senator Lambie before, when you said none of the people in this cohort represented a national security risk. Could you please clarify if any of the people in this cohort either are currently or were previously furnished with an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment? 19:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'd have to take that specific question on notice, but you would have heard what I had to say in answer to Senator Lambie's questions. 19:53 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I can assist you, Minister, because the document that you tabled in response to an order for the production of documents which I moved—the dashboard document which the officials in the advisers box should be familiar with—stated that two of this cohort have current qualified security assessments and one of the cohort had a previous adverse security assessment and qualified security assessment but now has a prejudicial outcome. That seems contrary to the answer you gave Senator Lambie that none of them represented a national security risk. You know why those adverse and qualified security assessments are issued. 19:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can't add to my earlier answer to Senator Lambie, but I would make the point that the entire reason we are sitting right now, past the usual sitting hours, is to deal with the situation that has arisen as a result of the High Court's decision. We hope to pass this legislation quickly and then have the House of Representatives do the same thing. 19:54 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I've been listening into the debate, and the concern is rightly about communities across the country. I recognise the need to deal with this swiftly after the decision, but clearly there's a lot of haste here, with amendments being circulated not long before we are to vote on them. I understand that this bill will go through, but, in light of the fact that Australia doesn't have a human rights act or the equivalent of a bill of rights and given just how rushed this, these are clearly not optimal conditions for legislating. But I understand the urgency, so I have circulated an amendment to insert a six-month sunset clause on this so that provisions can be put in place but it will require the parliament to come back and have a more thought-out, detailed plan on how to deal with this situation going forward once we have the full decision from the court. I understand that the major parties will get this through, and I support there being provisions to look after people in our community, but I really do think that this should be looked at again next year. 19:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Pocock. I haven't personally seen the amendment that you've circulated, but I know that has occurred, and I appreciate the sentiments that you were just expressing. I think I can flag now that the government won't be supporting that amendment, because we do believe that it is necessary to move on this legislation. You may not have heard me say earlier that we fully expect there will need to be further legislative steps taken on this matter once we have received the High Court's reasons, and I give you a commitment to work with you—and I'm sure the minister would as well—on concerns that you may have once we see those reasons. But we don't know exactly when the High Court will hand down its decisions. I'd like to think it would be within six months, but it may not be. So we don't support putting in place a sunset clause. But, again, we've said that, once we receive those reasons, we'll need to give this matter some more thought. It's quite possible there'll need to be some further legislative steps taken, and we'd be happy to work with you at that point in time. 19:56 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. I accept that, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be saying, 'We'll come back and legislate, but we want this just to sit there potentially going forward.' Again, I accept the urgency of this, but when you're sitting in your office and you get amendments an hour before we're going to vote on what is a very important bill—and we don't have the underlying protections of a human rights act here in Australia. It's a fact. We should have one, but it hasn't happened. So what is the guarantee that some of these provisions won't just linger in law? 19:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's obviously a decision for any parliament, including future parliaments, as to whether they decide to amend legislation that is passed, but I've already indicated why we can't agree to your amendment, Senator Pocock. I know that it's well intentioned, and I repeat my earlier statement that we will be considering the matter further once we receive the High Court's decisions. We'd be happy to work with you on any concerns that you have. 19:58 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, I will just ask a follow-up question to my previous question and your response around judicial review. Thanks for your response. Could I firstly just ask you to be clear about the second part of your answer? I understand the first part of your answer, which is that there is judicial review available for the minister's initial decision to impose conditions but that that does not include a merits review. So I understand that. But, on the second part of your response, exactly what decision is it that you are saying is appellable, including a merits review? What is the second decision that you referred to your previous answer and that you informed us actually is appellable with a merits component or a merits option available to the applicant? As part of that, could you just step us through which part of this amendment bill or the original act provides for those appeal opportunities? 20:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I just refer you to page 19 of the explanatory memorandum for the original legislation. I won't go through it in great detail, but it begins at paragraph 96. That sets out in some detail the situation here. Essentially, new subsection 76E(3) requires the minister, as soon as practicable after making a decision, to give the noncitizen a written notice setting out the decision. Then the following paragraphs in the explanatory memorandum go into some detail about the process for review and the minister's role in those reviews. So I think that that does adequately answer your question. 20:00 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I will be circulating an amendment to include a 12-month sunset clause. I would like the government's view on safeguards to ensure that this doesn't just sit there. We know that things change in politics. This has been so rushed. I accept the urgency of it, but to vote on something of this nature with such little time and then to not even accept putting in some safeguards, when we hear that we're going to legislate anyway next year—I'm just interested in the government's view on a 12-month sunset. 20:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I believe Minister Watt has answered this question. The government won't be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment, for the reason that Minister Watt has already explained. I move: That the committee report progress. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 The question is that the committee report progress.

The committee divided. [20:06]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Dean Smith)

29 AYES Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 13 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Progress reported.

BUSINESS 112 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 112 20:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the committee have leave to sit again. And I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put.

The Senate divided. [20:09]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Askew, W. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 13 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

20:12 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the committee have leave to meet again at a later hour.

The Senate divided. [20:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Askew, W. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 13 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Consideration of Legislation 113

The Senate divided. [20:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:18]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Askew, W. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 13 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:20]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Askew, W. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:23]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Askew, W. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:25]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:28]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Askew, W. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Askew, W. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [20:37]
(The President—Senator Lines)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Third Reading 120 20:40 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

The Senate divided. [20:40]
(The President—Senator Lines)

36 AYES Askew, W. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

20:42 The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to order, the Senate stands adjourned and will meet again tomorrow at 9:30. Good night, senators. Senate adjourned at 20 : 42