DOCUMENTS

2023-11-17 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Friday, 17 November 2023

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 NOTICES 1 NOTICES Postponement 1 09:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That government business notice of motion no. 1 be postponed to a later hour. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 1

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

Third Reading 1 09:31 The PRESIDENT 112096 No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole? No? I call the minister. 09:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the bill be read a third time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the bill now be read a third time.

The Senate divided. [09:36]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

21 AYES Birmingham, S. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Hanson, P. L. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. 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. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. 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.

Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023 2

Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023

Second Reading 2 09:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023, and I advise the chamber that the coalition will be supporting this bill. And as with the other urgent bill that was introduced into the House this week and has just gone through the Senate, we will facilitate its passage. This bill is intended to preserve the status quo. It addresses a technical issue around the dates on which a person is treated as being a bankrupt under the law. In order to take the benefits of bankruptcy, a person must file a document known as a statement of affairs. This is a document that sets out the person's financial position to allow a trustee to administer the bankrupt person's estate. The filing of a bankrupt person's statement of affairs effectively starts the clock on that person's bankruptcy. Under section 149 of the Bankruptcy Act, a person will be discharged from bankruptcy three years after the statement of affairs is filed. Where a person has a status of an undischarged bankrupt, important legal consequences then flow. For example, the estate of the undischarged bankrupt will be administered by a trustee, and, subject to the limitations set out in the law, the bankrupt's property is divisible amongst the creditors. The person gains the legal protections that go with bankruptcy only once that period has commenced, and the trustee has legal powers to deal with the person's property only until it ends. In other words, the dates when a person's bankruptcy period starts and finishes are critical because of the legal implications. There are technical and process issues that have important implications for dates over which the person is bankrupt. In order to take the benefits of bankruptcy, as I've stated, the person must file the document known as the statement of affairs. The statement of affairs sets out the person's financial position to allow a trustee to administer the bankrupt person's estate. The filing of the person's statement of affairs effectively starts the clock on the effect of the bankruptcy. The longstanding business practice of the Australian Financial Security Authority, known as AFSA, and its predecessors has been to treat a person's statement of affairs as having been filed on the date that it is accepted. This allows for back and forth between AFSA and the individual concerned to ensure that the statement of affairs is both complete and adequate. Once AFSA accepts a person's statement of affairs, it records that date as the date on which the National Personal Insolvency Index kicks in, and it is at that point, legally, that the person's bankruptcy is then triggered. This is a beneficial approach that has been widely accepted amongst the community. What does this bill actually do? The bill ensures that the law reflects the current practice and the settled understanding of most in the sector. It makes it clear that the filing date for the statement of affairs is the date on which it has been accepted by AFSA. As I said, this will merely confirm what is the status quo and affirm the longstanding practice of AFSA and create certainty for the use of the bankruptcy system. It does apply both prospectively and retrospectively to preserve the status quo. Technically speaking, the amendments ensure that the bankruptcy period of those who are or have been bankrupt is consistent with the dates recorded by the official receiver prior to commencement with respect to the bankruptcy. This will provide certainty to everyone who relies on the dates in the National Personal Insolvency Index to ensure their decisions and actions are valid. It benefits the bankrupted persons, the trustees and others. There is a carve-out, though, in respect of criminal law, and retrospective validation does not apply to criminal proceedings. We accept the government's assurances that this carve-out simply means that a person who believes they were wrongfully convicted of a crime due to a mistaken understanding as to whether or not they were bankrupt at a particular time will be able to challenge a conviction. That is the assurance that we have been given by the government in relation to that particular carve-out in the legislation. As I said, it is a simple bill. It is a technical bill, and it provides certainty and stability to Australia's bankruptcy system. The coalition will be supporting it, and I commend the bill to the Senate. 09:43 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank Senator Cash for her contribution to this debate and support for the Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023. The bill amends the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to accurately reflect the way automatic bankruptcy discharge dates have been calculated by the Australian Financial Security Authority and its predecessors for over 30 years. The provisions contained in this bill provide current and future Australian bankrupt persons certainty over their automatic discharge date and allow the Australian Financial Security Authority to continue its practice of assessing bankruptcy applications for adequacy in order to assist with the effective administration of bankrupt estates. The new provisions will require the official receiver to either accept or refuse to accept a statement of affairs within 14 days of receiving it. The time frame will ensure decisions are made within a reasonable and transparent time. The bill will also ensure that the bankruptcy period of those who are or have been affected by this issue is consistent with the dates recorded by the official receiver prior to the commencement in respect of the bankruptcy. These amendments will validate decisions made before the commencement of this bill in reliance of those dates. This is an important bill that provides certainty for those who are currently in or have previously entered the bankruptcy system over the past 30 years and clarifies the process of accepting a statement of affairs. I commend the bill. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 3 09:45 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 09:45 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023 3

Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 3 09:46 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is to improve the ability of the Professional Services Review to investigate potentially inappropriate practice by health professionals by addressing issues and ambiguities in the Health Insurance Act 1973. The Professional Services Review, or PSR, is an independent statutory agency responsible for maintaining the integrity of Australia's Medicare program through investigating and sanctioning inappropriate practice by health professionals. The bill builds on the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023, which was passed in September this year. That bill continued the reform to the PSR that was commenced under the former coalition government to strengthen the review mechanisms that were primarily for claims of MBS items. The bill also continues to implement changes arising from recommendations of the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance, which was undertaken by Dr Pradeep Philip. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to clarify and improve administration of the PSR scheme, including to better align the requirements for qualifications of committee members to the definition of inappropriate practice and to clarify how these requirements should apply; to ensure the committees can be properly established for practitioners who hold a rare combination of specialities or are practising in a different field to their formal specialist qualifications; to make it clear, where appropriate, that a reference to a practitioner includes a practitioner who is not currently registered, such as a deregistered or suspended practitioner, in order to ensure the PSR scheme applies consistently; to clarify the requirements for a person under review notifying a committee that they are unable to attend a hearing due to medical reasons, including that the person must provide a medical certificate supporting this evidence; and to provide the director with the power to extend the statutory time frame of 12 months for deciding a matter if the person under review leaves Australia or if there are ongoing court proceedings in relation to the matter. The coalition is supportive of this bill as it contains sensible changes in line with our strong and long-held commitment to protecting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare. Australia's Medicare system underpins our world-class health system and, importantly, is there for all Australians. We are so fortunate to have a health system in Australia that is accessible and available to every Australian no matter where you live or how old you are, and protecting the ongoing viability of Medicare is key to this. Medicare, which includes the Medical Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, continues to provide Australians access to free hospital care and more affordable health care and medicines. When the coalition was in government, investment in the MBS and PBS grew significantly under our leadership. In fact, we oversaw record investment in this area, and we were committed to continuing that record through our commitment to invest $133 billion over the four years into Medicare. Our approach to Medicare saw the highest bulk-billing rates on record. That is why it has been extremely disappointing to see that, since Labor came into government, bulk-billing rates have been dropping consecutively every single month. The latest annual data shows a total Medicare bulk-billing rate of 77 per cent, and 80.2 per cent for non-referred GP appointments, in the 12 months to June this year. These are the lowest bulk-billing rates since 2013. This is in stark contrast to the 12 months to June 2021, which saw rates at an all-time high of 88.8 per cent under the coalition. The Albanese government is overseeing plummeting bulk-billing rates at a time when Australians are struggling to pay the bills, let alone cough up for an unexpected GP appointment. And we know that the cost of seeing a GP could rise to over $100 per consultation. So this government was elected with a promise to strengthen Medicare, yet all of the data is pointing in the exact opposite direction. In fact, it has only become harder and more expensive to see a doctor since Labor were elected, despite all their headline promises. The Health of the nation report released by the RACGP this week has confirmed the increasing unaffordability of primary care under Labor. The number of GPs who bulk-bill all their patients has halved in one year, and the cost of seeing a doctor has increased by, on average, $11 per visit. That's $11 straight out of the pockets of Australians who are facing a cost-of-living crisis. Bulk-billing rates are falling, and the cost of seeing a GP is increasing, creating an unacceptable barrier for Australians in need of critical health care. This proves how important it is to ensure the viability of Medicare is safeguarded into the future, because right now it is clear that Medicare has been weakened from every angle, and Australians cannot afford for this concerning trend to continue. That is why the coalition will always be committed to supporting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare to ensure that all Australians have access to the critical support provided by Australia's healthcare system into the future. We were glad to see the government pass the Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill in December 2022. This was a coalition bill that we proudly introduced into the 46th Parliament to strengthen the compliance powers of the PSR and add a degree of flexibility to their ability to address any inappropriate practice. We understand how vital it is that there continues to be rigorous and effective health practitioner compliance to protect the financial integrity of Medicare. We also have a strong track record of supporting our hardworking healthcare practitioners and peak bodies to correctly claim health payments, with a clear focus on education, engagement and consultation. Australians rightly expect their tax dollars are being used appropriately and effectively, particularly when they are being spent on a health system which is facing increasing pressures. We need to support practitioners who are doing the right thing by the taxpayers and by their patients but also identify the health practitioners who are not acting in good faith. However, we do have concerns with the amount of consultation that was undertaken prior to the introduction of this bill, particularly in regard to the review on which these reforms are based. Time and time again, we are concerned by this government's refusal to allow appropriate levels of consultation on their policies and to follow proper process. Dr Philip stated in his report: Given the timeframes set for this Review, my formal consultation with stakeholders has been necessarily limited, supplemented by informal discussions with participants, and I have based most of my work on desktop analysis. This is simply not good enough. Once again, we put our disappointment on the record for the way that the limited time frames set for this review acted as a significant barrier for Dr Philip's ability to undertake thorough consultation. This is now a well-entrenched theme from Labor. They do not take the consultation process seriously, and any consultation that is performed by this government seems to be merely a political exercise, often after the decisions have been made. Their focus continues to be all on the headlines and never on the details or the delivery. But, once again, the coalition will support this bill and its proposed changes, in the interests of improving the Professional Services Review scheme. We acknowledge that this bill builds on the coalition's work to strengthen the PSR, and we are committed to supporting sensible reforms that protect the viability of the Medicare system into the future. 09:54 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Australia's universal healthcare system, Medicare, provides free and subsidised access for all Australians to most healthcare services. The government is committed to strengthening Medicare by improving the compliance framework that ensures the integrity of Medicare. The Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023 builds on the health insurance amendment act 2023, which implemented priority amendments in response to the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance undertaken by Mr Pradeep Phillip, known as the Phillip review. The Phillip review was commissioned by the government in November 2023 to respond to concerns about the operation of the Medicare system. The Phillip review recommended a comprehensive review of legislation relating to Medicare to ensure it is fit for purpose. This bill will strengthen the operation of the Professional Services Review, known as the PSR, which will protect the integrity of Medicare. The PSR is an independent agency established under the Health Insurance Act 1973 and is responsible for protecting the integrity of the Medicare program by investigating whether a person is engaged in appropriate practice. The investigation occurs by review undertaken by the director or by committees made up of health professional peers of the person under review. The bill will align requirements for the qualifications of committee members with a definition of 'inappropriate practice' and will clarify how these requirements should be applied. This will ensure that committees can be properly established for a practitioner with an unusual combination of specialities or where the practitioner is providing services in a different field from their formal specialist qualifications. The bill will also make several other amendments to clarify and improve the administration of the PSR scheme. Reducing ambiguity will ensure that a person under review is aware of how the PSR scheme should apply as well as enable the PSR to perform its role more effectively. The PSR must be able to work efficiently to achieve its objective to protect patients, the community and the Commonwealth from the risks and costs of inappropriate practice. This is essential to ensure that Commonwealth resources are directed to necessary health services and to ensure that Medicare remains sustainable. By supporting the integrity of Medicare, this bill will ultimately benefit all Australians. I acknowledge senators for their contribution to debate on this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 5 09:57 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 09:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 5

Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023

Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Second Reading 5 09:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Firstly, I note upfront that, while the opposition has some concerns with aspects of this bill that's in front of us, which I'll briefly outline, we will not be standing in the way of its passage. As background, the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 replaces the current Disability Services Act 1986. The current act has been in place for nearly 40 years and, in the decades since its introduction, it's obvious to everyone in this chamber, there have been quite substantial developments in the disability sector, including in the legislative framework, the regulations, the international agreements of which Australia is a party and, of course, the practical provisions of disability services. A huge amount has changed since the existing act was legislated. That's not to mention the establishment of the NDIS and the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. As a country, we're onto our second national disability strategy. It's important, given these quite momentous changes, that Australia has the right framework in place to ensure Australians with disability, who we know are some of the most vulnerable people in our community, can access the right supports and services. These bills establish an updated framework for the funding and regulation of programs that support one in six Australians with disability. It is also to support their families and carers and, of course, to make a number of consequential amendments to other bills and smooth the transition through transitional arrangements. The Disability Services and Inclusion Bill seeks to establish a streamlined framework to facilitate funding for supports and services, and we hope that, ultimately, this framework will assist with supporting all Australians with a disability, regardless of whether or not they participate in the NDIS. Much has been spoken about the NDIS, its great work and certainly its limitations, some of which have certainly been exacerbated under this government, notwithstanding a range of promises that were made by the then opposition—now in government—in relation to the NDIS. The bill itself doesn't change or impact the NDIS or disability support pension paid under social security laws. Rather, it will provide legislative authority for new and existing spending on disability related programs outside the NDIS. In that respect it will operate in a similar way to the objectives of the existing framework, which sits within the 1986 legislation. The bill doesn't directly allocate funding for specific supports or services. Rather, it oversees the supports and services. Importantly, the bill improves quality and safeguard arrangements by the introduction of a mandatory code which will mirror the NDIS code of practice—on this we can provide bipartisanship. It's a quite important harmonisation between the largest single program in our nation for those with a disability and a broader framework of those with a disability who aren't necessarily within the NDIS. Under this bill, supports and services may be provided to any person with a disability, including those with physical, psychosocial, cognitive, intellectual or sensory impairment. The Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 also makes a range of consequential amendments as a result of the repeal of the 1986 legislation and its replacement by the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill. Schedule 1 repeals the 1986 act. Schedule 2 amends the Commonwealth legislation, reflecting the repeal and current replacement of the Disability Services Act. Schedule 3 sets out application and savings provisions for the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill, with part 1 dealing with some of the preliminary matters, part 2 dealing with the operation of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill and part 3 dealing with the operation of the Disability Services Act. In our view there are some issues and potential concerns about this bill. Most importantly the bill does not define target groups that will be eligible for supports and services. This is quite a departure from the existing legislation. Under section 8 of the current legislation, the 1986 act, a target group: … consists of persons with a disability that: (a) is attributable to an intellectual, psychiatric, sensory or physical impairment or a combination of such impairments; (b) is permanent or likely to be permanent; and (c) results in: (i) a substantially reduced capacity of the person for communication, learning or mobility; and (ii) the need for ongoing support services. While we acknowledge that not having a slated definition of a target group quite obviously may provide greater flexibility in access to services and supports, without the additional infrastructure in place there may be unknown practical consequential impacts on the provision and delivery of timely support service to those who need it. We will be keeping a very close eye on this framework but we will not stand in the way of this bill. 10:02 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia We consider the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 in a historic context. Disabled people in Australia, having worked and fought together for decades against the ableism that is such a deep part of government decision-making, have successfully together won a series of victories for the disability justice movement: the establishment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for the first time a nationally consistent program to provide so many of us with the vital sports and services that we need; and the establishment of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, finally creating that much needed investigation into the violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect which has taken so many and so much from our community. These victories have been won due to fierce and fearless advocacy and action by grassroots activists, by our national advocacy organisations and peak bodies working with our allies in the community. It is a proud moment for our community, and I am proud, as a disabled person in this space, of what we have achieved together. The government, in putting forward this legislation, has set itself two benchmarks of success. The first is that the act shall provide for the provision of services beyond the NDIS—services, supports and advocacy not funded under the NDIS. It's absolutely vital that the Commonwealth play a role in the provision of services in this space because—and I do feel that I often have to remind so many in this chamber of this—the NDIS only covers about 10 or 11 per cent of all disabled people in Australia, or about 610,000 to 630,000 participants. The remaining over three million disabled people in our community do not access the NDIS and so, from a Commonwealth perspective, are left to receive supports and services through acts such as this, and this is a key act in this space. In that context the government, in putting forward this bill, seeks to create for itself a couple of other benchmarks for this legislation. Indeed, in articulating the repeal of the current Disability Services Act 1986, which is an act that should have been repealed and replaced a long time ago—and we agree with the disability organisations who, in submitting to the inquiry into this bill, stated that the current act fails to set out a vision for an inclusive society. It fails to set out a vision for an inclusive society. The government, in response to repealing this piece of legislation, has stated that the objects of the bill are to 'provide funding outside of the NDIS to persons that provide supports and services for the benefit of people with disability, their families and carers' and to 'advance the inclusion and social and economic participation of people with disability'. These are the two benchmarks the government set themselves in this bill: provide services outside of the NDIS, and advance inclusion and social and economic participation. These are the benchmarks against which the Greens and the disability community judge this bill. Against those benchmarks, this bill in its current form is a failure. It fails to achieve the objects that it sets out to achieve, and that is why it is in need of significant amendment. It also fails to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, and this must be considered very seriously. The royal commission was the largest of its kind in Australian history, subject to thousands of submissions and pieces of verbal evidence. We as a disability community have been betrayed and let down by government services so many times. As a disabled person I cannot tell you, and so many of us share this experience, how many times we put our trust in a government system or service and we say, 'You've said on your website, in your policy,' wherever, 'that your role is to support us to achieve our goals and to realise our rights,' and then the reality of that program or service is that it doesn't. That's not an experience or phenomenon confined to a certain period of time or government. This is a systemic failure across time, and it undermines your trust and it undermines your faith in these systems and services. It makes you not want to engage. It makes you not want to report. It makes you not want to trust that, if you speak up about what is happening to you, you will be believed. So, in that context, people overcame a lot of those barriers and said: 'You know what? We don't trust government processes. We don't trust ministers. We don't even trust the judicial system, which has continually failed to protect us from violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. But do you know what? One more time we will try. We will share our experiences. We will give our evidence in the name of all those who have been lost, all those who have been murdered, all those who have been abused, all those whose lives have been scarred by discrimination, all those who daily face the sting of segregation at the hands of government policy. One last time we will trust.' And we gave our evidence. We shared our experiences. The disabled members of that commission, working with allies, non-disabled commissioners, presented a very clear set of recommendations in the report that they handed down. These are very clear recommendations about how we end the cycle of segregation which sits at the heart of abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation in this country. They call on us in their recommendation, they call on the government, to look clearly at the reality of our lives, the reality that so many of us as children are forced into segregated educational settings. We are corralled together, taught to different curriculums, supported or denied support, depending on the type of disability that we have. We are separated from our non-disabled peers. From there we go into segregated work where we are paid $1, $2 or $3 an hour, because, for some reason in this country, still, in 2023, there are asterisks in the fair work legislation. Australia, this nation founded on the belief of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, contains 'except if you are a disabled person,' in which case over 20,000 of you, can be paid a couple of dollars for your time. From this segregated setting in which we are systemically robbed of pay, we are then placed into segregated housing settings. Where we are forced to live together in groups, regardless of whether that is what we would choose. And, when we protest about this, we are told, 'Well, many disabled people don't want to live on their own. They like living with people. They don't want to be lonely,' as though any person should be forced into a dichotomy between isolation and being clumped together with people you don't know. Nobody else in Australia is asked to do that. If you say, 'I'd like to live with somebody. I don't really want to bum around the house on my own and be alone at night,' you're given a choice: either you can do that or you can share with a whole group of people you don't know. As I say that, I hear many renters say, 'Well, I'm forced to live in a share house because of the high rate of rent.' Absolutely! And that's an awful situation that many people are forced into despite their choice. But that is not government policy. Whereas, if you are a disabled person, it is government policy, and it is public funds that support these institutions. So, through segregated education, segregated work and segregated housing, do you know what happens to us? We die. Segregated housing, education and employment lead to early death. That reality may make some people feel uncomfortable. It may not fit with what they had previously assumed to be the case. But I implore you, I implore this chamber: listen to disabled people, engage with the reality of our lives and the ableism that we experience. During the course of this debate, I will bring you back to the fact that, in seeking to repeal this act and replace it with a new act, the government has granted itself maximum opportunity to implement the recommendations of the royal commission, to listen to the disabled people's organisations that submitted to the inquiry and to join with the disability community in deciding that the pathway forward is inclusion. There is no such thing as a just system that includes segregation. As a legislative Commonwealth body we have—and I am so grateful for this—decided that racial segregation is wrong, that racial segregation is disgusting. It offends every moral principle that a human being within this place could support. I ask you to join with the disability community in applying that same humanity to us. In the course of this debate, I will offer amendments which will chart a pathway to the desegregation of Australian society and the full inclusion of disabled people. In doing so I will directly mirror the recommendations made by the disability royal commission. In the view of the Australian Greens, the time frame for this transition is too long. With regard to desegregated education, for instance, the royal commission sets out a time line that wouldn't see this achieved until 2051. That would see children born today watch their children be forced into segregated education. That is not acceptable. But I offer to the chamber today an opportunity to decide that desegregation is the destination and that together we should break the cycle of segregation that leads to early death, violence and abuse. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) acknowledges that: (i) the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability recommended that a Minister for Disability Inclusion should be appointed, and (ii) that disability ministers have been appointed by previous governments; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) appoint a Minister for Disability Inclusion in line with the Royal Commission's recommendation, and (ii) provide ongoing and needs-based funding for Disability Representative Organisations, other disability organisations and advocacy services". The second reading amendment I have just moved gives the chamber the opportunity to endorse the royal commission's recommendation that there be a disability minister established within the Commonwealth government. There is a Minister for Women, as there should be. There is a minister for First Nations people, as there should be. There should be a minister for disability. 10:18 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and its associated bill. I will start by saying I endorse many of the things that my Greens colleague Senator Steele-John has said here today. While we don't agree on many issues, I think many of the things that Senator Steele-John—as well as Senator Ruston and others—has said on this ring true. They resonate powerfully with me and, I know, with many others. While we look at things through very different philosophical frameworks, one could argue that the Australian disability strategy and the NDIS, as a policy and a program, are fundamentally very liberal. I say that because the NDIS and the Australian disability strategy, which Senator Ruston, as Minister for Families and Social Services, and I, as NDIS minister, were proud to implement, go to the heart of one of the things Senator Steele-John has been talking about today—that is, inclusion. As Liberals, we look at it as the right of all individuals to realise their own life aspirations and to have power, control and responsibility over their own lives. As the NDIS minister, I came to learn about the history of how this nation has treated people with disability in previous years, and still there are echoes of this today—far too loud echoes of a time when we looked at people with disability as people not to include in mainstream society but to define by their disability, not to define them and support them in line with their many abilities. People, particularly those with serious and permanent disability, were locked away. Parents were told that the only option for them was not education or supports to help them realise their own aspirations, to have self-control over their lives and the course of their lives and to have the dignity of risk. We have a shameful history, looking back, of institutionalisation of people with disabilities, where many were isolated and had their lives defined by their disabilities, and they were not supported, either, as they should have been. Too many were subject to coercive controls, physical and chemical. Shamefully, that still continues today. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people with disabilities who have been forcibly sterilised, who have been involuntarily subject to birth control and who still do not get the supports they need to realise their own life aspirations and to be included in our society. Much has changed since the current act was legislated, so, on this side, we are supporting this bill. But, like pretty much every other piece of legislation those opposite have brought forward, it is deficient. I'll go through some of those deficiencies later. It does go some way to improving the situation, but, again, not as much as we would like. On a personal note, I agree with Senator Steele-John in terms of the need for a dedicated cabinet-level minister for disability, not only for the NDIS but also to take responsibility for all disability related services and supports so that finally we can have a single minister responsible for coherent disability policy. It's a little bit of a shame that the Labor Party hasn't taken that opportunity to make those arrangements, but it is never too late. Over the last decade, since the introduction of the NDIS, we have adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and we are now on our second decade-long national disability strategy, which we in the coalition were very pleased to deliver. I also remind all colleagues in this chamber that not only did we release the Australian disability strategy, which was a transformative new strategy backed by a $250 million investment to provide a robust framework to deliver real and positive life changes for people with a disability, but we also appointed the wonderful Dr Ben Gauntlett as Disability Discrimination Commissioner. He was also appointed by Minister Ruston at the time to chair the strategy's advisory council to support the implementation. The strategy itself does set out priorities and plans for governments at all levels, and I think that it is a positive step forward. From my perspective, the most important aspect of the strategy, which unfortunately we've seen very little evidence of this government embracing and implementing, was that it was signed off by all states and territories, because, to really move forward in disability strategy over the next decade in this nation, states and territories have to step up. They've done what many states and territories do best. When the NDIS came into being a decade ago, they defunded their own disability strategies, which was the complete opposite of what they were supposed to do in their agreements with the NDIS, and continued to provide community supports for the four million people who were not eligible for the NDIS, because they didn't have at the time what we saw as the most serious and permanent disabilities. We've heard a lot of rhetoric from Minister Shorten, but we've seen no action at all yet on renegotiating the intergovernmental agreements on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. States and territories must accept their responsibilities under Australia's Disability Strategy and in the recommendations of the royal commission. Again, this government has demonstrated no urgency or progress in implementing the royal commission's recommendations. This government, halfway through its term, hasn't even released the independent review of the NDIS yet. By all accounts, they have no intention of releasing that or this year's actuarial report, the AFSR, which would give us some idea of how they intend to make $74 billion worth of savings out of the NDIS over the next decade, apparently without cutting a plan or participant numbers, which is completely impossible. The sector knows that. We know that on this side. But those opposite are still maintaining that myth, which is a cruel fraud and hoax on everybody with a disability and their families. Coming back to the bill itself, the bill does establish an updated framework for the funding and regulation of programs that support one in six Australians with a disability, their families and their carers. It also makes some consequential arrangements to other bills and arrangements. While we support this bill and the updating of this framework, as usual, it is deficient in a number of areas. We hope that the government will now start looking at amendments. Why they did not address these areas in the drafting of the bill is completely beyond me, because that seemed like such a logical thing to do. If they were going to bring forward this bill, they should have made sure they brought forward the best possible bill. But then we look at the complete debacle of yesterday. In 30 years working in this building, I have never seen such incompetence. The government knew since June of the possibility of the High Court's decision, and they waited until yesterday to present a highly deficient bill. Fortunately, they did accept the coalition's amendments to strengthen the bill—but, time after time, they keep bringing forward these deficient bills. We have issues with this bill that need to be addressed. The first is that it does not define target groups that will be eligible for support and services. On the one hand, you understand broadening it, because there are a lot of complexities with individuals with a range of complex disabilities. But, knowing the incompetence of those opposite, a bit like with the NDIS, they refuse to have some form of standardised assessments, which has made it all too easy now for states to move people into the scheme without any controls. Arguably, those are people who should be looked after under state schemes and not the NDIS. This is a departure from the current legislation, and the implications of that are not yet very clear. Also, under section 8 in the current legislation, the Disability Services Act, the targets groups consist of people with a disability that: (a) is attributable to an intellectual, psychiatric, sensory or physical impairment or a combination of such impairments; (b) is permanent or likely to be permanent; and (c) results in: (i) a substantially reduced capacity of the person for communication, learning or mobility; and (ii) the need for ongoing support services. While not having a legislated definition of a target group may provide, as I've said, greater flexibility and access to services and supports for those who are a little more challenging to diagnose, there will certainly be unknown practical, consequential impacts on the provision and delivery of timely supports and services for those who most need it. I think that, in bringing forward this bill, those opposite have learnt not a thing about the flaws that they baked into the NDIS legislation 10 years ago, and that is a portent of what will now happen with this legislation. It was very clear very quickly that they couldn't have baked greater flaws for an insurance scheme into the legislation 10 years ago, when they were last in government. Where did they go wrong with that scheme? First of all, there are two drivers of scheme cost for Australian taxpayers. The first one is participant numbers, and the second one is the average cost of individual participant plans. What did the geniuses then in government, who are now back in the government benches, do? They made sure that the government minister of the day couldn't control either lever of cost. They gave it to an independent board who was not responsible for managing the budget that the federal taxpayers and the federal government had given them. When those geniuses developed the legislation, not only did they not give the government control of those two levers; guess what else they did? They baked into the federal legislation that neither of those levers could be changed without the unanimous support of the state and territory governments. And what state or territory government is going to give the federal government control, when they have just shunted financial responsibility—which the federal government can't control—to the federal government? As minister, I went to Bill Shorten, the shadow minister at the time, and said, 'Let's work together on a bipartisan basis so we can put this scheme on a sustainable financial future, so that those who most need it—those with serious and permanent disability—can be assured that they will have this scheme to make sure that they can live a life in accordance with their own aspirations, that they have self-determination over their lives and that they have dignity to live their lives, take risks and have risk in their lives as the rest of us do.' But no: Mr Shorten instead has played politics with this. He is still playing politics with this. He has now created this mythical promise which everybody in the sector knows cannot be delivered. You cannot make $74 billion worth of savings and not cut participant plans and participant packages. In fact, it's on track now to be over $74 billion. What the government have done is banked the savings over the next 10 years based on baseline data from last financial year. But guess what: not only is it going to be more than the $74 billion that they have saved—or that they say they have saved. From the eight per cent they wanted to moderate cost to over the next decade, they've gone from 12 per cent to 15 per cent in one quarter alone. So, while we will accept this legislation as better than nothing, like every other piece of legislation and everything those opposite touch in the disability sector, it is making people's lives worse. That is the tragedy. We are working across the aisles together with the Greens because, even though we come from different philosophical bases, we want people—all Australians with disability—to have the same life opportunities. The Greens say 'inclusion', but we call it realising their own aspirations. Those opposite are making sure that's going to be harder and harder. (Time expired) 10:33 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I want to echo the comments of my colleague Senator Steele-John and acknowledge his amazing work and knowledge in this space. I also want to acknowledge the work of the First Peoples Disability Network, who have worked endlessly and continue to work so hard in advocating for First Nations disabled people. They do some amazing work, and it's so important that we take this time to acknowledge the hard work of organisations and services who are on the ground and who are absolutely are seeing firsthand what the issues are and fighting to fix them. Whilst the Greens welcome the repeal of the Disability Services Act 1986, we are absolutely disappointed—and it was very evident during Senator Steele-John's speech on the second reading—and frustrated by the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and related bill before the Senate today. I echo his frustration and disappointment in that. The Greens understand and see the efforts expended by the disability community in particular to clearly state what those barriers are that disabled people actually face and exactly what is needed to break those barriers down. This bill does not listen to those voices—absolutely not. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments of Senator Reynolds, as well, from the coalition. It seems that this is a habit of this government, so we completely agree on that, Senator Reynolds. I know that in both my portfolio areas of resources and First Nations time and time again I am told that people's voices are not being listened to, and that's a slap in the face for everyone. During the election process this government promised that they wouldn't leave anybody behind. They are, in fact, leaving the disabled community behind in this instance. During the inquiry into this bill the disability community were very clear that this could have been an opportunity to put into action Australia's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This would include committing to time frame for ending the segregated employment, the segregated education and the segregated housing that we've heard about today. There was also an opportunity to tangibly and immediately improve the lives of disabled people. The Greens know that the only barrier to a lot of those solutions is actually the political will to get on with the job. The Greens have a few amendments to this bill, and Senator Steele-John and I have co-sponsored two of those. I know he will continue to speak to those on my behalf. These amendments seek to highlight the intersections for First Nations disabled people and the unique needs and considerations that First Nations disabled people need in order to obtain culturally safe and appropriate care and support while ensuring that they still have connection to their culture and their community. The importance of this issue is something which I have spoken about many times in this place. This government has a duty to ensure that key pieces of legislation such as this both enliven and give effect to the rights contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I'll be on my way to a committee meeting shortly to look at the chair's report from the committee that's looked at the domestication of the UNDRIP. The UNDRIP has four key principles that can and must be brought to life through this piece of legislation and many others across various portfolios. They are about self-determination, participation in decision-making, respect for culture and the protection of culture, equality and non-discrimination. I don't think it's very hard for those in this place and the other to take these principles into consideration when we are drafting legislation and pushing it through the parliament. Our amendments highlight how this bill can and should feed into closing the gap, which is such a big agenda for First Nations communities. Whilst there is no specific target for closing the gap, there are many targets that relate back to the quality of life and the connection to culture that disabled First Nations people deserve. These targets include increasing life expectancy, inclusion in employment and education, access to housing, lowering incarceration rates and reducing suicide rates. As Senator Steele-John has already mentioned the royal commission's work, I want to specifically refer to something from that report that talks about the overrepresentation of First Nations people with cognitive disability who are in custody. This particularly applies to youth detention. The report states that this is largely a hidden national crisis, and I can vouch for and attest to this because it is such a huge issue for us in our home state of Western Australia, which Senator Steele-John and I represent. We know these gaps exist for First Nations people, and they are even wider for disabled First Nations people. Having quality, accessible, affordable and culturally appropriate care is paramount for disabled First Nations people in closing these gaps. This government must ensure that the decisions made under this legislation relate back to closing the gap and to UNDRIP. That's how we can ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of those people who will be directly impacted by the decisions that we as elected representatives in this place make. 10:39 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise to speak on the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, and in doing so I want to acknowledge the wonderful leadership of my colleague Senator Jordon Steele-John in advocating for changes to support disabled people in this place. This bill seeks to repeal the Disability Services Acts 1986 and provide legislative authority for new and existing spending on disability related programs outside of the NDIS. The Greens welcome the repeal of the Disability Services Act. It's been nearly four decades since the enactment of this legislation, and since then we've seen a multitude of developments in the disability sector. We've experienced a shift in legislation, regulations, international agreements and the way disability services are provided. This has coincided with a growing awareness of the mistreatment, the neglect and the violence experienced by people with disabilities, and the absence of safety, quality and value in some disability services. Repealing the Disability Services Act presents a real opportunity, and we have to make sure that this opportunity doesn't go by without doing everything we can to end the cycle of segregation that too many disabled people find themselves trapped within. We need to ensure that the human rights of disabled people are upheld in all services that will be funded by this bill, and we need to ensure that disabled people are included in the decision-making processes. As Senator Steele-John has said, getting this bill right could be transformational for the lives of disabled people. However, this bill fails to meet its stated objective to advance the inclusion and the social and economic participation of people with disability. It also fails to implement recommendations of the royal commission. The Greens are disappointed and frustrated by these failures, because we know how much time and effort the disability community has expended to share with governments the barriers to inclusion they experience and the services and the policy responses that are needed to break things down. As we outlined in our additional comments to the bill's inquiry report, this bill fails to put into action Australia's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Importantly, it fails to include key recommendations from organisations that represent disabled people. The Labor government has also missed the opportunity to tangibly and immediately improve the lives of disabled people by making reforms to the disability support pension. I remind you that the objective of the bill is to advance the inclusion and social and economic participation of people with disability. To do that, you need to address the rate of the disability support pension. The disability support pension is completely inaccessible and inadequate. Not enough people can get it, and, when they do get it, it's not enough. This was made clear in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry that was undertaken in 2021-22 into the purpose, intent and adequacy of the DSP. I was the chair for most of this inquiry, and I heard the overwhelming criticisms about the rate of the disability support pension and how inaccessible it is. The current maximum base rate of the payment is around $71 a day, which is at least $10 below the poverty line. Without access to affordable health care and the necessary support, it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for disabled people to budget $71 across both the cost of living and the extra costs that go with having a disability, such as the medical costs associated with their disability. Our inquiry also heard how the current income limits for the DSP were disempowering and disincentivising disabled people to work, as many people feared that if they re-entered the workforce they would lose the payment entirely. Being financially supported or working shouldn't be an ultimatum imposed upon people by our social security system. We should be empowering people with disabilities to find meaningful work that suits them, not making it even more difficult for them to gain employment. Throughout our inquiry, the committee also heard clear evidence from disabled people, their families and carers and advocacy organisations about how difficult, expensive and traumatising applying for the DSP is. We heard time and time again that a key barrier for many people accessing the DSP is the impairment tables and how they systematically exclude many people with, for example, comorbidities and/or psychological disabilities. When people put the time and effort into applying for the disability support pension—these are people with disabilities, and for many of them making that application is incredibly difficult. Then they get knocked back. Then they apply again and get knocked back again. It is just heartbreaking. It is not supporting people with disability. It's certainly not advancing the objective of this act, which is to support the social and economic inclusion of people with disabilities. We heard in our inquiry how unfair and unrealistic it is to require some applicants for the DSP to undertake 18 months of mutual obligations or the program of support before being eligible for the payment. In response to this evidence, the inquiry made some really important recommendations to improve access to and adequacy of the payment. Notably, these included recommendations for the government to improve access by removing the criteria to be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and to review the impairment tables. The committee also recommended that the government consider making the program of support voluntary and review the income test to better support disabled people entering the workforce. But despite these very salient and very clear recommendations, out of a consensus report of our committee, the Labor government still has not officially responded to the inquiry report and has largely failed to act on its recommendations. I would have thought that putting up legislation today might have been an opportunity to incorporate some of those recommendations into legislation. I do acknowledge and note that last year the government did undertake a review of the impairment tables, which led to the removal of the condition applicants to be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised and replaced it with the condition of 'diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised'. These changes were welcome and important, but they failed to holistically address the full remit of issues associated with the DSP, including the adequacy, the problematic interaction with workforce participation and the program of support. So now, despite the opportunity to improve the lives of disabled people again by reforming the DSP in this bill, the Labor government has failed yet again. I want to state again that the Greens know how significant repealing the Disability Services Act is. So, we won't let this opportunity pass us by without advocating for the transformative change that's needed. So, Senator Steele-John and I will be moving amendments in the debate of the committee of the whole to improve the adequacy, the accessibility and the inclusivity of the Disability Support Pension. Our amendments seek to: raise the rate of the base payment above the poverty line, to $88 a day; increase the income-free area of the DSP for people aged under 21 to ensure that people are empowered to work if they want to, without fear of losing their payment; make the unfair system of mutual obligations within the DSP application process truly voluntary; and remove the requirement that a condition be diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised, which would then increase the accessibility of the payment by removing the need for a diagnosis to be corroborated in evidence found in discriminatory impairment tables. These amendments actually respond to the recommendation of the Senate inquiry into the DSP, which the government haven't yet done. And they're a critical step for reducing barriers for disabled people within our social security system and fit absolutely squarely and in the centre of what should be in this bill if it is to meet its objective of advancing the social and economic inclusion of people with disabilities. I want to note that while improving the access to and adequacy of the DSP is vital to improving the lives of disabled people in the social security system we know that we can't stop there. Right now we've got millions of people who are barely scraping by on youth allowance, older people increasingly becoming homeless, and people on JobSeeker having to survive o payments well below the poverty line. Our social security system is broken, which is having a significant impact on the wellbeing and lives of Australians, including particularly, as we're discussing today, disabled Australians. More than 43 per cent of JobSeeker recipients have a partial capacity to work, meaning that they are sick and/or disabled, and they can't access the DSP. So, while improving access to the DSP will decrease this number, it's critical that anyone who needs support is able to get it. That is why the Greens are advocating for a guaranteed liveable income which would apply to everyone. This would mean raising the rate of all income support payments above the poverty line, to $88 a day; abolishing from our social security system punitive measures like mutual obligations and all forms of compulsory income management; and returning the provision of employment services to the Commonwealth. This sits side by side with our plans to build and create affordable homes, to increase wages and to reduce the costs of essential services by making them free. The Australian Greens believe that disabled people have a universal and immutable right to agency, safety, bodily autonomy, privacy, education, employment, housing, social support and health care. These rights are inherent in all disabled people and must be prompted and recognised in all interpersonal community and structural settings. That's why we are pushing for a guaranteed livable income and why we are seeking to amend this bill. To truly advance the inclusion and the social and economic participation of people with a disability, we need the Greens amendments that we are seeking to make to this bill to be passed. Then we would really have change and disabled people would have a real ability to live decent lives and thrive in Australia. 10:51 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I too rise to speak to the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. I would like to acknowledge, like my colleagues before me, the work of Senator Jordon Steele-John in advocating for and raising the voices of people in the disability community. I would also like to echo the comments made by Senators Rice and Cox. In particular, I'd like to address the Greens amendment to end segregated schooling by 2051. I note that I come to this debate as a teacher with 30 years of experience who only left the classroom in April last year. We know that segregation at school leads to a life of segregation for people with a disability, so it's incumbent upon us to change this, and we start by ending segregation at school. Surely setting a target of doing this by 2051 is achievable. I understand the concerns that are raised by teachers and educators when it comes to talk about ending segregation. I've taught in the public education system for around 30 years, and over that period of time I've watched the consistent and persistent underfunding of our public school system. It results in a lack of support for students—in particular those who have additional needs. But that is not a reason to say that we shouldn't end segregation in our schools. It's a reason to say that we need to properly fund our schools so that they can support all students. Persistent lack of funding in public schools means that we are not currently meeting the needs of students with a disability who are in them. We heard in the school refusal or 'school can't' inquiry that schools are persistently failing to address the needs of, in particular, students who are neurodiverse. We also saw recently in Queensland statistics that show that roughly half of students who are being suspended from our schools are students with a disability. We need to do better. I support my colleagues' amendments to extend inclusion to all students in our schools and to end the segregation of young people with a disability in our schooling sector. If we want people with a disability to be able to participate fully in our communities then we need to start by allowing them to participate fully in our schools. Let's remember: inclusion, and doing it properly, benefits every young person in our schools. There is a reason why attendance levels at our schools are dropping, why young people are becoming increasingly disengaged in our system, and why teachers continue to feel, particularly in our public schools, that they have a lack of support to give every student in front of them what they need to fulfil their potential. I support these amendments, and I say to the government: if we can't end segregation in our schools, when are we ever going to end it? 10:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank senators for their contributions this morning on this really important debate. I know that there are a number of amendments to be moved in Committee of the Whole that the Senate would like to get to. In summing up, I want to thank the disability community generally and all of the stakeholders that have provided advice and input into the development of this bill, including through the Senate committee process. I would note the committee's finding that the bills will advance the interests of and outcomes for people with disability, families and carers, and that the view of the committee was that we should pass this bill. I know that, with the disability royal commission, with the work the government is doing around the National Disability Insurance Scheme and with the development of this legislation, we are asking a lot of people. I would very much like to place on the record our thanks for the contributions of all of those stakeholders, because we would not be able to do this work without them. I look forward to getting into the Committee of the Whole to address other issues that people might have. I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

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

10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.

Explanatory Memorandum 14 11:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023. In Committee 14 11:04 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia First of all I would like to speak to amendment number (1) on sheet 2210. This amendment seeks to do something pretty simple—that is, to update the title of the bill so that it actually reflects the content and purpose of this bill. As I outlined to the chamber in my second reading speech, this bill is titled the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill—'and Inclusion'. This was an active decision by the minister to include such a piece of language in the title of the bill and to go further in the principles and objectives of the bill to outline that the purpose of the legislation is to advance the social and economic inclusion of disabled people. I say this with all seriousness, having read an analysed the bill carefully: this piece of legislation does not achieve those ends. An inclusive society for disabled people will only be achieved when segregation is removed from that society. It will only be achieved when the services funded by the Commonwealth are explicitly inclusive in nature. It will only be achieved when the services which we rely on, the programs which we rely on as disabled people, are fully, actively and comprehensively monitored and subjected to proper processes which enable violations of code of conduct to which those programs may be subject—let's call a spade a spade. Sometimes, when government talks about the violation of a code of conduct, it can seem very stale and sterile when it is actually something visceral and real for a human being. The code of conduct to which these services and programs will be subjected will call upon providers and recipients of funds, to summarise, to prevent the person receiving the services being subjected to violence, abuse, exploitation or neglect—very, very serious. These services will be extended to a significant portion of the Australian disability community. Over three million Australians will be eligible to access these services—three million people from a community which we all should now be very clear is systemically subjected to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. There is a real need for good, clear oversight that is co-designed with disabled people and a clear process which enables disabled people to complain and to seek recompense when they have their rights violated by a program funded by the Commonwealth. And yet this bill makes no provision for such a mechanism. This doesn't make any sense. Let's just engage in a little bit of actual logical thought for a moment. The National Disability Insurance Scheme covers between 610,000 and 630,000 disabled people. Now, every single person that provides a service or support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme is required to comply with the National Disability Insurance Scheme Code of Conduct. Violations of that code of conduct—if you have your rights violated, if you are abused—enable you as a disabled person to take that complaint or objection to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Senator Hughes understands this process very well. Senator Cadell understands this process very well. I'm sure, as the former Chief Minister of the ACT, Senator Gallagher understands the vital importance of the quality and safeguards commission's role in the oversight of the NDIS. And yet, in this legislation, which proposes to provide services to all those disabled people who are not subject to the NDIS—over three million people—there is no such commission created by the government in this act. Instead it is the contention of the government that violations of the code of conduct shall be investigated. The code of conduct shall be upheld thanks to a team within the Department of Social Services—within DSS. In one case we have over 600,000 people covered by a dedicated commission. For all other disabled people—over three million people—there's no dedicated commission, just a couple of folks within DSS. This makes no sense at all, will not advance inclusion and places disabled people at risk, so I ask the question: why is the government proceeding with this legislation at this time? The government's response I'm sure is, 'Well, senator, there is a need to advance this legislation to enable us to respond to the royal commission,' as though they'd like to be given a medal for the speed at which they have responded to the royal commission. In fact all they've done is establish a task force as the direct result of the structural confusion that exists within this government because of the absence of a disability minister. Nobody can decide whose job it is to champion the rights of disabled people and implement these legislative reforms, so they've set up a task force. Let's accept that strange premise for a moment. Let's say they do need this legislation to respond to the royal commission. The government set out a time frame for its response to the royal commission. The government's time frame is to provide that response in the first half of next year. Having identified this massive barrier in oversight, this complete absence of a mechanism which would ensure the rights of disabled people are upheld and our abuse, if we are subject to it, is actually investigated and perpetrators held to account, why not hold this legislation and continue in a process of codesign and then move forward with it as part of the broader package to implement the recommendations of the royal commission at the beginning of next year? The last reason I would flag as to why the word 'inclusion' should be removed from the title of this bill is that it doesn't actually take proactive steps to ensure the inclusion of disabled people. This legislation is happy and enables the continuation of funding and services, which is exclusionary. It doesn't say it in the terms that the old act used, it doesn't explicitly say it in the terms the current act uses, but it does not proactively prevent the Commonwealth funding exclusive and exclusionary programs. In the face of the call of history to finally decide that the direction of travel of the Australian government is towards inclusion having been presented with the opportunity to join with the disability community and the Greens in the work of the collective liberation of disabled people, this government has decided to rush through a piece of legislation which fails to meet the very standard for success that it sets for itself. This is not good enough. The very least this chamber could do in the absence of the desire of the government to be honest and transparent with the Australian people as to the effect of this bill is to remove the word 'inclusion' from the title of the bill. It's a word with such force and meaning, and it should only be applied to a piece of legislation which actually advances us toward that goal. This legislation does not, and therefore I urge the chamber to join with the Greens in supporting this amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 Before I call the minister, to clarify, Senator Steele-John, are you moving that amendment now? Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Yes, why not? I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2210: (1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 7), omit "and Inclusion". 11:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting this amendment. I acknowledge the contribution made by Senator Steele-John and the views that he has outlined to the chamber, but the government doesn't accept the arguments that he's putting. I would say this bill hasn't been rushed. There have been two significant rounds of consultation. The first one led to the drafting of the bill. Subsequent to that, there was another comprehensive round of consultations and then, of course, a Senate committee process. So that's a response to those criticisms. I would also say I accept the view that Senator Steele-John has put about the use of the word 'inclusive'. I would say that there is strong support from the disability community—I'm not arguing that there aren't those that might support your position, Senator Steele-John—who have commended the focus on inclusion in the drafting and development of this bill. For those reasons, we think it's important to retain those and, as such, will be opposing the Greens' amendment. 11:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The opposition will support the government's position on this particular amendment, but I would like to acknowledge the intent behind the amendment that's been put forward by Senator Steele-John, because the reality is that simply changing the name of something doesn't actually change the outcomes that are delivered by it. We would say to the government that, if you are intending to change the name and include the word 'inclusion', it does provide a level of responsibility for you to actually follow through and improve the inclusiveness of the way that the government operates in terms of its interface with the disability sector for the provision of services to the sector going forward. We know from a number of other initiatives by the government so far that they seem to think that changing a name somehow is going to change the outcome, and changing the name signals to the electorate that they are intending to do so. I can't think of better example of that than urgent care clinics. Simply changing the name of a practice to an urgent care clinic, when nothing else changes, does not deliver any beneficial outcome to the Australian public. So I would say to the government that we'll be watching very closely as this bill comes into effect, because the responsibility of government in relation to disability goes far beyond the responsibility for the NDIS and the delivery of that scheme. A bipartisan approach was offered to the NDIS, and the coalition remains very committed to the delivery of the outcomes of the NDIS, but that does not mean that government can walk away from its broader responsibility to make sure that people who live with disability are being supported even if they are not part of the NDIS. We will not be supporting this amendment, but we will certainly expect the government to not just use and include the word 'inclusion' in the bill. We will expect them to act on inclusion if they really think that this bill is going to deliver what its title says it will. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 2210 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:22]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Chandler)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 21 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:24 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I've got a couple of questions for the minister representing. First of all, I have a question in relation to the second reading, which the Senate has voted on previously. I know that you have closely followed the disability royal commission and disability policy issues. The second reading, which the Senate voted on moments ago and which your government proposed, called upon the Senate to take the view that your government should adopt the recommendations of the disability royal commission and appoint a disability minister. It made this recommendation—this recommendation exists, and the Greens support the establishment of such a position within a particular context. That context is that the commission made very clear in its investigations and findings that across multiple areas of government—not only across, yes, the NDIS and, yes, traditional service delivery but also across transport, education, employment, housing and health care—there are systemic failings in policy which subject disabled people to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. The absence of a coordinated response from government and the absence of a specific individual within government who has the responsibility and—I would say—the privilege of championing the rights of disabled people are significant factors in both the creation of policy which has perpetuated these forms of abuse and the systemic failures which have caused these forms of abuse. It is something which strikes the disability community as really quite odd. In a context where the government does have a minister for women, the government does have a minister for First Nations people and these roles are seen as appropriate responses to complex policy issues that exist within these spaces and an appropriate reflection that these communities deserve to be reflected in the structure of their government, it strikes the disability community as strange and also quite offensive that this position no longer exists within the federal government. I say no longer very advisedly and specifically, because these positions used to exist. The former Labor government had a disability minister. The former coalition government at least had an assistant minister for disability. I would put to you, Minister, that the same cross-portfolio approach to the need for the government to respond to the royal commission is insufficient. It risks the replication of the very confusion and lack of coordination that led to the systemic failures which the royal commission found. I ask you to outline for the Senate why your government opposes the establishment of a disability minister. 11:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government hasn't responded to the disability royal commission at this point, as you know, and we're not going to be responding recommendation by recommendation. Minister Rishworth is leading a whole-of-government process and response for the government to what was a very comprehensive report. It was over 200 recommendations, some that were focused on the Commonwealth and, as you know, others that focused on state and territory governments and other organisations as well. That work is underway. I recognise the fact that addressing some of the significant failures that have occurred across numerous governments and systems responding to the support required by people with a disability and their families requires a coordinated response. We should be working to ensure that, in all parts of government and all parts of the disability sector, there aren't gaps and areas where people, organisations or governments don't think they have responsibilities to address support for people with a disability. We accept that. We have Minister Rishworth. We have two cabinet ministers sitting around that table for whom a vast majority of their job is focused on either policy relating to people with a disability or services and responses to it. I think that shows you how seriously the government takes this area of responsibility. In response to your question, it really is that waiting for that process to be finalised by Minister Rishworth, the whole-of-government response, which is underway and is being carefully thought through. 11:31 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, I say this with genuine personal respect for you, the dedication that you bring to your portfolio and the engagement that you have with your portfolio: I must draw your attention to the way in which your answer, given in good faith, draws our attention to the problem that the amendment that the government has just voted against is trying to solve. You just identified for the chamber that Ministers Shorten and Rishworth are two cabinet ministers around the table with primary responsibilities relating to disability. That's not actually accurate. Your health minister has significant responsibilities for disability. Your minister for mental health issues, Minister McBride, has significant responsibilities for disability. Your employment minister has significant responsibilities for disabled people. Last time I checked, so does the Attorney-General, under their responsibilities to administrate the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. So does your Minister for Women and your minister for health in relation to the elimination of forced sterilisation in Australia. Your minister for transport has responsibility for the accessibility and inclusive nature of our transport system in Australia. If I sound like I'm a little bit frustrated, it is because disabled people—the vast majority of us—do not receive supports via the NDIS or via programs administered by DSS, and so there is a need for a minister in cabinet whose job it is to champion our rights everywhere they exist. My frustration is also because your government applies deep double standards to this question. You recognise the vital need for a minister for women. You recognise that the whole of government has responsibilities to ensure that the rights of women are upheld and that there should be a minister within your government with responsibility to champion policy that is important to Australia's women. You also recognise, as you should and as we in the Greens do, that there is a vital need for every element of the Australian government to be coordinated in its response to the needs of First Nations people and that there must be a minister for First Nations affairs. In First Nations affairs, you rightly have not only the Hon. Linda Burney in her position in the House but also Ministers Dodson and McCarthy. These are good things you have done. Yet you do not apply the same principle to disabled people, who are constantly passed from pillar to post within your government, with people passing the buck and with personality and political conflicts between ministers causing delay and malpractice in administration of programs and policies. All of this would begin to be solved if there were one person in your government with the responsibility of championing disability rights. Your response to this, Senator, has just highlighted that. So I would ask you to reflect upon the very example you have just given the chamber and attempt to identify for the Senate again the precise source of your government's opposition to the establishment of a disability minister. 11:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm sorry. I did not intend my contribution to be taken the way that you've taken it. In fact, I used the words 'whole-of-government' and 'a whole-of-government response'. The example I was given there was the disability royal commission, which covers a whole range of areas. I have worked for many years in the disability community and the service sector. I accept that every one of us has a responsibility. So does the government. We do have lead ministers for certain areas, but I am not in any way saying that I don't have a responsibility or Minister King doesn't have a responsibility. The Treasurer, the Prime Minister and all of us have a responsibility to address areas within our portfolio capabilities more broadly, to support services and to respond to the needs of people with disability. I understand how you could interpret my remarks that way. I didn't intend for them to be interpreted that way. That is not the way the government operates. We do see it as a whole-of-government response, led by the cabinet more broadly. 11:37 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Thank you, Minister. Again, that is the way you operate in relation to disabled people. It is not the way you operate in relation to First Nations people or women in Australia. That's the differential that this amendment sought to point out. But, moving on from that, I believe, Minister, that you said—and I'll give you a quick opportunity to confirm either way—that the reasoning for the government's opposition to the Senate motion that you just voted against was twofold: (1) that you won't be responding to recommendations on a case-by-case basis; and (2) that the government has not yet responded to the totality of the royal commission recommendation and that is the source of your opposition to the amendment. Is that correct? 11:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes. 11:38 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Given that you have acknowledged that the government has not responded to the royal commission recommendations and will not be responding on a case-by-case basis to recommendations of the royal commission, why has your government brought forward this legislation at this time? You have just said you won't even vote for a second reading amendment which simply asks the chamber to adopt a view that your government should establish a disability minister. You have voted against that on the grounds that you as a government have not yet given a full response to the disability royal commission. Yet we are being asked this afternoon to vote for the repeal and replacement of one of the most significant pieces of legislation in relation to disabled people: the Disability Services Act, which provides the Commonwealth with the power to provide disabled people who are not on the NDIS and their families and carers—all three million plus of us—with services and supports. You want to do that today, not when the government finalises its comprehensive and coordinated response. You are pushing this today, when you could spend months—the months left in this year and the months left between the beginning of next year and the time when the government hands down its recommendations on the royal commission—consulting with disabled people and implementing the suggestions made to you by no less than 26 peak bodies and organisations as to the changes that are needed within this act. If your government is so concerned about not even taking a view, a theoretical view offered by a second reading amendment, on just one of the recommendations of the disability royal commission until the government finalises its response, then, Minister, why have you brought this legislation to this chamber, when you could have brought it as part of a comprehensive package that responded to the disability royal commission's recommendations? 11:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think the short answer to that is that, in terms of drafting this legislation, officials were responding and seeing it as an enabling piece of legislation for the broader reforms that will come through the disability royal commission. They have been taking note of the evidence and speaking with commissioners through that and, obviously, going through other consultation processes as well. It wasn't a specific recommendation of the disability royal commission; in a sense, the work on it predated that. Consistent with the answer I have given, I don't believe that this is being rushed or being dealt with sooner than it should be. I think there was a view that we needed to respond swiftly to put in place quality safeguards required for people receiving services and support. These bills do that. 11:42 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, I need to clarify your answer. You said simultaneously that this legislation was not a response to a specific royal commission recommendation but also that there was a need to move swiftly. With respect, you can't have it both ways. Is it a response to the royal commission, in which case you need to move swiftly, or is it not a response to the royal commission, in which case you don't have to be bound by any particular length of time? 11:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't accept that I'm talking at cross-purposes. I'm saying it wasn't a specific recommendation. One of your criticisms was that we were saying that we weren't responding recommendation by recommendation. Then your next question was, 'Why are you doing this ahead of the formal government response?' I'm saying that this was not a specific recommendation but has been informed by evidence and work that was done throughout the disability royal commission proceedings, and there was a view—supported, I think, by a lot of people, including elements of the disability community and the peak organisations—to put in place a legislative framework that would enable the reforms that will come through the disability royal commission and to have that in place as soon as we could. That's what this bill is about. 11:44 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, if, as you say, this bill is designed to enable the government to respond, how can the government be sure that it does in fact enable the government to respond, when the government has not decided what its response is to be? 11:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The bill before you is a broad framework that we believe is consistent and will allow for the implementation of the response. I understand your point about preferring that this be dealt with later, or not now, but nothing in this bill would prevent or obstruct the implementation of the government's response. It puts in place a broad framework that will support and enable the reforms. 11:45 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, with respect, how do you know? You have just said that nothing in this legislation will impede the government's response. Yet you have also informed the chamber that the government has not yet responded to the royal commission. Upon what basis do you make that claim? 11:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I believe I've answered the question. I accept that you don't agree with it, but I've answered the question. 11:45 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia With respect, Minister, you haven't, and I think you know you haven't. You cannot claim in one sentence that the government has not yet responded to the report and then in the next sentence claim that the legislation before us today will not impede the government's response to the royal commission. Those are two mutually exclusive statements. 11:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I accept that we're disagreeing on this, Senator Steele-John, but I don't agree. As you know, there are powers within the legislation for the minister to add in services or responses if required. That's what I mean by a broad framework, but we want the framework in place. 11:46 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Did the government consult any of the disability royal commissioners in the drafting of this legislation or in the adoption of the timeline which has brought the legislation to the chamber today? 11:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I said in an answer to a previous question that there were consultations with the disability royal commissioners in the development, drafting and preparation of the legislation. 11:47 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Thank you, Minister. Can you outline for the chamber which of the commissioners the government engaged with and what form that engagement took? 11:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm just seeing if there's anything further I can provide to you, Senator Steele-John, on the nature of that, but my understanding is that the legislation was consulted on with the commissioners. That happened at least twice during the drafting of legislation. 11:48 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Are you able to provide the Senate with the dates of that consultation and whether it took the form of in-person or written correspondence? 11:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I can come back to you directly on that, just so that the information is accurate. My understanding is that there were discussions in person. I can say that no concerns were raised with the department about the legislation, but, if I need to correct that, I will. That's the advice I've got. As to whether it was in writing, I think we need to check with officials who may have been responsible for that. 11:49 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I thank the minister for undertaking to get that information, which I think is what she and the officials have undertaken to do. If you're able to get it and table it with the Senate, that would be really useful. Could I ask a genuine follow-up question to that. Are you able to tell us whether the disabled commissioners were part of that conversation? As you know, Minister, there were non-disabled and disabled commissioners in the royal commission process. It matters very deeply to the disability community that the disabled commissioners were consulted in relation to their views on this legislation. 11:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I will need to correct the record. I've just been advised that the discussions were had with officials of the disability royal commission, not commissioners themselves. That's my error in what I said earlier. We will get the specific nature of that, but I think that answers your question just then. How about we see if we can provide for you in writing the nature of that engagement, when it occurred and who it occurred with? I'm advised that there weren't any issues raised, but, if we need to deal with that, we will come back to you. 11:50 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Yes, if you could come back to us specifically with, if there were any issues raised, what they were and when precisely those consultations took place. I'm particularly interested in whether they were pre or post the delivery of the final report of the disability royal commission. Minister, can you outline for the Senate the ways in which this legislation enables the desegregation of disabled people in Australia? 11:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Through the approach of the legislation, the objects of the act takes an inclusive approach. The Senate inquiry highlighted that one of the key flaws of the current Disability Services Act was that it actually embedded exclusion and segregation for particular communities of people with a disability. Those elements have been removed, and we have responded to feedback from the disability community, developing an act that specifically speaks to inclusion and removes the enablers of segregation within this framework that we are discussing today. 11:52 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Thank you. Can you draw the Senate's attention to the specific sections of the proposed act which would prevent the provision of funding by the Commonwealth to programs or services which segregate disabled people or which are segregationist in their nature? 11:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think the answer to your question is that the bill doesn't do that, but—and this goes back to the earlier point I was making about the broad framework that this bill represents—I also say that, in evidence to the committee, in particular by Inclusion Australia, which is an organisation that represents people with an intellectual disability, they themselves stated it would be inappropriate to legislate any ending of segregated sittings through the bill and that government taking this position would require extensive consultation, appropriate infrastructure and support around transition. I hope that answers your question. There's no doubt more work to be done. 11:54 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Can you outline for the Senate whether your government has done any modelling around the number of complaints that you expect to receive in relation to violations of the code of conduct to which services delivered under the act will be subject? 11:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm about to speak off the top of my head here, but no. I wouldn't have thought the department would have modelled potential complaints that would come. Modelling is a technical term, so I would say there hasn't been any modelling done. Your question more broadly is whether the department has a view, perhaps, on complaints that might be lodged under the code of conduct and the number of them. I think that would be difficult to forecast. I'm not sure how the department would do that, and I don't believe that they have done it. I believe they haven't done it in a modelled sense, which would require you to run particular assumptions through the model to get to an outcome. But even in a preparatory sense, if you put in place a code of conduct and complaints are lodged, you would have to respond to those complaints. But I'm not sure that you could predict the volume of those complaints or how they would be managed. 11:55 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Currently the act proposes to administer any breaches of the code of conduct via the complaints management processes within the Department of Social Services. Can you outline for the Senate how many officers are currently within that complaints management division of DSS? 11:56 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, we might have to come back to you on that. There is a specific complaints area, but officials who are very ably supporting me this morning don't have the exact number of officers that would sit within that complaints area. I am advised that on current information the complaints that come forward are relatively low. If there is more information I can provide on that, we will try to get it sent through. But my understanding is it is relatively low. 11:57 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria In respect of the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, I seek leave to move Greens amendment (4) and requests for amendments (1), (2), (3) and (5) on sheet 2199 together. Leave granted. Senator RICE 155410 I move: (4) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 6 — Removal of program of support Social Security Act 1991 1 Paragraph 94( 2)( aa) Repeal the paragraph. 2 Subsections 94(3A), (3C), (3D) and (3E) Repeal the subsections. 3 After paragraph 94(5)(a) Insert: (ab) a person participates in voluntarily; and 4 Sections 94A to 94F Repeal the sections. and: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "3", substitute "7". (2) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Increases to maximum basic rates of various payments Part 1 — Age pension, carer payment and disability support pension Social Security Act 1991 1 Point 1064-B1 (table B) Repeal the table, substitute: 2 Point 1065-B1 (table B) Repeal the table, substitute: Part 2 — Disability support pension (under 21) Social Security Act 1991 3 Point 1066A-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: 4 Point 1066B-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Part 3 — Application of amendments 5 Application of amendments (1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's disability support pension, age pension or carer payment for days occurring on or after the day this item commences. (2) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in a table of the Social Security Act 1991 as substituted by an item of this Schedule; and (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. (3) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 5 — Increase to income free area for disability support pension Part 1 — Disability support pension (under 21) Social Security Act 1991 1 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 3) Omit "$2,184", substitute "$7,800". 2 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 4) Omit "$80", substitute "$300". 3 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800". 4 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$300". 5 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800". 6 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$300". 7 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800". 8 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$300". Part 2 — Application of amendments 9 Application of amendments (1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the following the rate of a person's disability support pension in respect of days occurring on or after the day this item commences. (2) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in the table in point 1066A-F3 of the Social Security Act 1991, as amended by this Schedule; or (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. (5) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 7 — Changes to the rules for applying the Impairment Tables Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023 1 Subsection 8(3) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (3) An impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if the condition and the resulting impairment is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years. 2 Subsections 8(4) to 8(7) Repeal the subsections. 3 Paragraph 8(8)(b) Omit ", where the condition has been diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised for the purposes of subsections 8(4), (5) and (6),". _____ Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the various maximum basic rate amounts of age pension, carer payment, disability support pension, and disability support pension (under 21). As the effect of this amendment will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. Amendment (3) Amendment (3) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the ordinary income free area for the disability support pension (under 21) under the Social Security Act 1991. As the income free area is the amount of income a person can receive before their payment begins to decrease, increasing the income free area would result in some recipients receiving a higher rate of payment and would also increase the number of people for whom payments are payable. The effect of the amendment would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. Amendment (5) Amendment (5) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to reduce the number of mandatory considerations relevant to assessing a person's work-related impairment for the purposes of eligibility for the disability support pension under the Social Security Act 1991. As the effect of this amendment will be to effectively expand the class of persons eligible for the disability support pension, the amendment would increase the number of people for whom payments are payable. The effect of the amendment would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. Amendment (1) Amendment (1) amends the commencement table of the bill and is consequential to any of the other amendments being agreed to. As amendments (2), (3) and (5) are framed as requests, amendment (1) is also framed as a request. Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendments (2), (3) and (5) If the effect of the respective amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests. Amendment (1) This amendment is consequential on the respective requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request. These amendments relate to improving the accessibility to and improving the rate of the disability support pension, which are critical and central to meeting the objective of this act to achieve the economic and social inclusion of people with disabilities. As I noted in my second reading speech, the Senate community affairs committee did a very comprehensive inquiry into the adequacy of the disability support pension a couple of years back. That committee made some consensus recommendations, but we have not had a response from government on those recommendations, which is pretty upsetting given how much work went into that committee report and the input that we had from people with disabilities. As I said, the recommendations we came up with had cross-party support. What these amendments seek to do is to implement some of those recommendations. In our final report, the committee made some important recommendations to improve the disability support pension. We wanted the government to investigate how the requirement that a condition be fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised is preventing people with conditions that are complex, fluctuating or deteriorating over time from accessing the DSP. As I noted in my second reading speech, yes, we do acknowledge that there have been changes to the criteria, but they don't go far enough to deal with the barrier for people to have their condition assessed as being reasonably diagnosed, treated and stabilised. We asked that the government consider reforming the income test for recipients of the DSP to better support individuals facing structural barriers to participating in the workforce and to better recognise the fluctuating nature of people's ability to work. The committee envisaged that such reforms could, amongst other things, raise the income thresholds at which the DSP payment is reduced and lower the rate at which it's reduced once this threshold is reached. We also asked that the Department of Social Services review the program of support requirement and consider making participation in an employment service program voluntary for all DSP claimants. And we recommended that the government investigate ways to better support people on the DSP who are at risk of poverty, particularly those in the private rental market, and ensure that people can participate in their communities and cover their living costs. And of course with the skyrocketing cost of housing, the limited availability of housing and the limited amount of social housing we have so many people with disabilities who are struggling. They cannot pay the rent, pay to put food on the table or pay for their medical and housing expenses and the extra expenses often entailed because of their disabilities. The amendments that we are moving today respond to those recommendations of that committee report. These amendments would raise the base rate of the Disability Support Pension. They would increase the income-free area for people under 21, make the program of support voluntary and remove the requirement that a condition be diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised. Our amendments go further than any recent reforms to the payment, and are an absolutely critical step to improving the accessibility, the inclusivity and the adequacy of the payment. 12:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This is a very significant amendment being moved by the Greens, and it doesn't fall within the bill itself. The government will not be supporting it. 12:01 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I'd just like to respond to that, and then I'll be happy to move on. The fact that the minister has said the amendment doesn't fall within the scope of the bill goes to the very point we've been making: that the so-called objectives, the aim of this bit of legislation, of achieving social and economic inclusion for people with disabilities, is not being reached by this bill. A vast range of things are being left out of this bill. If you are going to have a piece of legislation that actually ensures and improves economic and social inclusiveness for disabled people then you need to address the income they live on. You need to address their ability to get a Disability Support Pension. You need to address the fact that currently 43 per cent of people who are on JobSeeker have only a partial capacity to work. These are the very issues that legislation dealing with improving inclusiveness, improving the social and economic abilities for people with disabilities to live in our society, needs to address. So absolutely we very strongly believe that the amendments that we are moving today should be included in this legislation. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 The question is that the request for amendments and the amendment be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:07]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. (Teller) McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:09 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I have four questions. I'll do a little bit of explaining to get to the point. One Nation simply cannot support a bill that establishes an entirely new disability bureaucracy when the bill does not even define 'disability'. I wonder: is this an admission that the NDIS has failed or that the government is letting it run completely out of control? I'll come back to that. I remind everyone of the hasty and ill-thought-out concoction of the NDIS. Prime Minister Gillard hastily introduced it for election purposes before an election. Then she was voted out, and the Liberals and the National Party inherited a complete mess. They tightened it up, but it's still sloppy. In tightening it, we got mixed signals going about services that are being provided to the disabled. That leaves them in a totally inadequate situation. I'm concerned about taxpayers and the disabled in these remarks and questions. If the NDIS continues in its current form, it will send the entire country broke and continue to provide inadequate services to the disabled. This bill does not deal with the NDIS. It establishes an entirely new bureaucracy in an entirely new agency. If the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 and the associated consequential bill pass into law, the Minister for Social Services will be given legislative authority for new spending programs to cover the 88 per cent of Australians living with a disability who cannot access support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme at the moment. I want to talk about the NDIS now because it provides financial support to just 610,000 participants, or 12 per cent of Australia's estimated population living with a disability, while being the second-most expensive social program after the age pension. The annual running costs in the year ending 30 June 2023 were $38.8 billion. That is 26 per cent higher than Medicare, $30.8 billion; 40 per cent higher than aged care, $27.7 billion; and 40 per cent higher than the support for state government hospitals, $27.3 billion. Minister Bill Shorten expects the annual running cost in 2026 to be $50 billion, making it almost double what is spent on state government hospitals. The NDIS is unsustainable at these levels and will not be able to properly provide services for the disabled. I'm not going to sign a blank cheque for any government. I won't be giving the government more spending power until I know how taxpayer money goes to those to whom it is intended, and many of the disabled are not getting the services necessary. Like many Australians, I've worked hard to bring up my children and to pay my taxes. Every tax dollar that the NDIA wastes is a dollar that is not spent on health, education and keeping us safe. NDIS participants using their plan money to holiday in exotic places and paying excessively for ordinary items like transit wheelchairs and aluminium shower chairs diminishes support for the program and prevents services to other disabled people who deserve support. Until I'm satisfied the Labor government can manage their departments, I'm not going to give them any more spending power. The Auditor-General investigated decision-making in the NDIA, the agency, between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2017 as part of his report Decision-making controls for sustainability—National Disability Insurance Scheme access. In one group of 150 cases that were reviewed, the decision-maker's name was not recorded in 42 cases. In another 18 of the 150 cases, there was no record of the reasons for the decision. That's not accountability for taxpayers' money. In a review of another 1,339 cases, 13 per cent—that's almost one in seven—did not have sufficient evidence to support decisions to give lifetime support under the NDIS Act 2013. These findings in 2017 led to the Auditor-General making a number of recommendations. Seven of the nine recommendations made in relation to improving decision-making controls and fraud controls were not fully implemented by the time the Auditor-General investigated the NDIA again last year. Despite a history of approving access to the NDIS without lawful authority, senior bureaucrats in the NDIA will not make sure all delegates are trained. Of the 1,147 NDIA planners employed by the NDIA on 30 June 2020, only 73 per cent—under three-quarters—of them had been trained to spend billions of hard-earned taxpayer money. No wonder the NDIA costs cannot be controlled! Not only does the government need to show me it can manage the NDIA in accordance with the law passed in this chamber, but it also needs to deal with the demand shock created by the introduction of the NDIS. The sudden high demand created by the tsunami of money in NDIS participant plans has caused the cost of seeing an occupational therapist, a speech therapist or a psychologist—as well as others—to skyrocket. NDIS is more generous than the Department of Veterans' Affairs or aged care, and that leads to inequality. That should not be the case. It's a mess. It's time the government aligned the price it pays for the same service across different government programs. Anyone can apply for a participant package under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, but only people with a disability who meet the age, residency and disability requirements and can demonstrate that support is reasonable and necessary are intended to get support for a lifetime. As I've already said, it's a lottery at the moment because decision-making is so poor in the National Disability Insurance Agency due to its messy and improper formation and its lack of foundation at its birth. While public servants sit in air-conditioned offices, an army of poorly paid disability workers provide the core supports needed by people with a disability. Disability workers are poorly paid, trapped in a system with little job security or prospects. They're often working with questionable service agencies. Their employers are small businesses which often have no relevant experience and are unable to provide training or support in what can be confronting and stressful situations. No wonder there's a shortage of disability workers right now. I want to see all National Disability Insurance Agency plans de-identified and made public. Australians need to know what is being funded. They're the ultimate payers for this service. Employing a qualified chef to teach someone how to cook at home is a luxury that we cannot afford. Prior to NDIS, it was estimated that families provided 80 per cent of the support for a person with a disability and the government provided 20 per cent. The introduction of the NDIS was to shift some, but not all, responsibility to government, with families providing 60 per cent of the support and the government providing the remaining 40 per cent. We don't know much about the level of family support provided today, but we do know only 30 per cent of all plans are managed fully or partially by the participant or their family, which suggests that government is taking on far more responsibility than was ever planned. Participant managed plans account for 30 per cent of the number of plans but just 12 per cent of the NDIS budget. These budgets are spent, but not overspent. Another 60 per cent of plans are managed by someone other than the participant or their family. These managed plans account for 46 per cent of the NDIS, four times as much. The remaining 10 per cent of NDIS plans are NDIA managed, and they account for 42 per cent of the NDIS budget. The NDIA consistently underspends these plans. Why? Until I see lawful, responsible and effective by the National Disability Insurance Agency, I will not be supporting any new spending power by government. One Nation supports disability services, yet they have to be sustainable for the Australian taxpayer or there will be no services in the future, and those services that there are won't be fit for the disabled. Spending on the NDIS will outstrip all Medicare services. There is billions of dollars of fraud currently happening in the NDIS that the government has done next to nothing to stop. We'll be opposing this bill until the government can prove it is running the NDIS in a way that isn't going to send the country broke. I'll go back to my opening question from my first question: is this new legislation an admission that the NDIS has failed or that the government is letting it run completely out of control? 12:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The answer to that is no, and this bill is not about the NDIS. 12:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Why are we are we setting up a duplicate and parallel bureaucracy when we can't even rein in the first one? 12:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We're not. 12:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland How much money will be required to implement this bill? 12:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There's no funding attached to this bill. 12:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland We're already in a deficit. Where is the money coming from to pay from this parallel disability system? 12:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government already provides support and services outside the NDIS. 12:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Will you do a root-and-branch review to assess the basic NDIA design, intent and strategy? 12:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There's work being led by National Cabinet in relation to reform to the NDIS, and that work will proceed at first minister level. 12:20 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Could you give me some details on that, Minister, because it's the taxpayer and the disabled who need to be treated with respect here? 12:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There are communiques that are issued outside of National Cabinet. There's also the work that's been done under the NDIS review. I think parts of that information, including the terms of reference, are publicly available. 12:20 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia by leave—In respect of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2181, amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2182 and amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2172 together: SHEET 2172 (1) Clause 17, page 22 (line 23), omit "this Part", substitute "section 13". (2) Clause 17, page 22 (line 27), omit "that section", substitute "that Act". (3) Page 23 (after line 3), at the end of Part 2, add: 18A Segregated accommodation or housing (1) Despite subsection 13(1), the Minister must not make an arrangement for the making of payments, or make a grant of financial assistance, to a person in relation to the provision, on or after 1 January 2038, of accommodation supports or services that involve the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. (2) Despite section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, the Commonwealth must not, on or after the commencement of this section, make an arrangement, or make a grant of financial assistance, under that Act in relation to accommodation or housing, on or after 1 January 2038, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. (3) Despite subsection 14(1) of the NDIS Act, the National Disability Insurance Agency must not, on or after the commencement of this section, provide funding in relation to accommodation or housing, on or after 1 January 2038, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. (4) Despite Part 3 of the NDIS Act, an amount is not payable under the National Disability Insurance Scheme in respect of a plan (within the meaning of that Act), that comes into effect on or after the commencement of this section for a person who is a participant in that scheme, if: (a) the amount is in relation to accommodation or housing, on or after 1 January 2038, for the person; and (b) the accommodation or housing involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. _____ SHEET 2181 (1) Clause 8, page 10 (line 3), at the end of the definition of education supports or services, add ", including supports or services to facilitate participation in mainstream education settings". (2) Clause 17, page 22 (line 23), omit "this Part", substitute "section 13". (3) Clause 17, page 22 (line 27), omit "that section", substitute "that Act". (4) Page 23 (after line 3), at the end of Part 2, add: 18B Segregated education (1) Despite subsection 13(1), the Minister must not make an arrangement for the making of payments, or make a grant of financial assistance, to a person in relation to the provision, on or after 1 January 2051, of education supports or services that involve the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. (2) Despite section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, the Commonwealth must not, on or after the commencement of this section, make an arrangement, or make a grant of financial assistance, under that Act in relation to education, on or after 1 January 2051, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. (3) Despite subsection 14(1) of the NDIS Act, the National Disability Insurance Agency must not, on or after the commencement of this section, provide funding in relation to education, on or after 1 January 2051, of people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. (4) Despite Part 3 of the NDIS Act, an amount is not payable under the National Disability Insurance Scheme in respect of a plan (within the meaning of that Act), that comes into effect on or after the commencement of this section for a person who is a participant in that scheme, if: (a) the amount is in relation to education, on or after 1 January 2051, for the person; and (b) the education involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. _____ SHEET 2182 (1) Clause 8, page 10 (line 12), at the end of the definition of employment supports or services, add: ; (d) supports or services to facilitate participation by people with disability in employment that does not involve the segregation or isolation of people with disability. (2) Clause 17, page 22 (line 23), omit "this Part", substitute "section 13". (3) Clause 17, page 22 (line 27), omit "that section", substitute "that Act". (4) Clause 17, page 22 (line 30), omit "This Part", substitute "Section 13". (5) Page 23 (after line 3), at the end of Part 2, add: 18C Segregated employment (1) Despite subsection 13(1), the Minister must not make an arrangement for the making of payments, or make a grant of financial assistance, to a person in relation to the provision, on or after 1 January 2034, of employment supports or services that involve the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. (2) Despite section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, the Commonwealth must not, on or after the commencement of this section, make an arrangement, or make a grant of financial assistance, under that Act in relation to employment, on or after 1 January 2034, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. (3) Despite subsection 14(1) of the NDIS Act, the National Disability Insurance Agency must not, on or after the commencement of this section, provide funding in relation to employment, on or after 1 January 2034, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. (4) Despite Part 3 of the NDIS Act, an amount is not payable under the National Disability Insurance Scheme in respect of a plan (within the meaning of that Act), that comes into effect on or after the commencement of this section for person who is a participant in that scheme, if: (a) the amount is in relation to employment, on or after 1 January 2034, for the person; and (b) the employment involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. (5) Despite Chapter 2D of the Social Security Act 1991, the Employment Secretary (within the meaning of that Act) must not, on or after the commencement of this section, make an arrangement for the making of payments, or make a grant of financial assistance, in relation to employment, on or after 1 January 2034, for people with disability that involves the segregation or isolation of people with disability from other members of Australian society. These amendments end segregation for disabled people in housing, in work and in education. In Australia in 2023, a disabled child is forced to go to a segregated special school where disabled children are physically prevented from being educated alongside their non-disabled peers. In 2023, a disabled person can legally be paid dollars on the hour for their labour packing earphones for Qantas or putting food in packages for the Defence Force. Twenty thousand of us are forced into these forms of segregated work, and don't you tell me about choice. I hope that in the course of this debate the government does not once bring forward the discriminatory nonsense of choice. When disabled people and our families are repeatedly refused entry to mainstream settings including mainstream schools, when employers don't return our requests to be interviewed for a job and when we are told that our support needs cannot be met by an employer in the workplace, we are left then with no option. Don't you dare tell disabled people that, just because of certain policies and procedures of the disability support pension, it is perfectly fine for us to be paid dollars on the hour, when this government sets the policies of the disability support pension. And don't you dare tell us that we have to choose between being segregated together in institutional housing settings and loneliness in isolation. I am so sick of advocates for segregated housing explaining to me: 'Oh, Senator, if we got rid of segregated housing, disabled people would be lonely. Don't you know that disabled people like to live together?' We sometimes do. We sometimes don't. We are human beings, and we deserve the same choice in housing that is afforded to every other person in this country. It is true that renters right now may need to club together to afford their rent in this rental crisis, but there is not a government policy that has the explicit intent to require them to do that. That is what we currently have in segregated housing in Australia. These settings in which segregation occurs have been identified by the disability royal commission as key parts of the cycle of segregation in which disabled people are trapped and forced into segregated schools, forced into segregated work and forced into segregated housing. What is the result? The result is violence, abuse, neglect and early death. The government may well say: 'There is need for more consultation. There is a need for a transition.' These amendments give you 10 years for the transition to fully inclusive work, 10 years to pay us a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. It gives you 10 years to ensure all disabled people have the right to live in the forms of housing that we choose. It gives you until 2051 to decide that disabled children will be educated alongside our non-disabled peers wherever we live. Thirty years is long enough. In fact, in the view of the Australian Greens, it's too damn long. We think that you should get on and do this within the next decade, but let us take this moment to decide that inclusion is the destination and there are to be no caveats upon the rights of disabled people in Australia. Enough of us have spent long enough in the dark, chained to beds and denied our rights to control where we go to sleep at night and who shares our spaces. Enough of us have spent long enough having our labour systemically exploited with the support of Labor governments. Enough is enough. The cycle of segregation must end. It falls to this government, at this place and at this time, to make a decision: are you going to join with the disability community and the disability justice movement in our work for the collective liberation of disabled people, where no body or mind is left behind in that transition? Or are you going to continue to administrate a system which sees us segregated, exploited, abused and driven to early death? These are the decisions before you now. These amendments by the Australian Greens give you the opportunity to make a choice, to decide to join with us and to back the rights of the disabled people, and I urge you to join us today. Urgency is needed. The lives of disabled people, our lives, matter. We will no longer accept mumbling words about consultation or transition. Action is how we will judge you now. I commend these amendments to the Senate. I commend the transformation they will enter us into, and I pledge my whole body and soul to the realisation of a fully inclusive Australia. I know that every single one of my Greens colleagues join me in that. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 The question is that Greens' amendments on sheets 2181, 2182 and 2172, moved by Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:34]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:35 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to move all remaining Australian Greens amendments en bloc. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 Is leave granted? 12:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We're very happy to facilitate putting all of those together, but we would indicate we would vote separately on the amendment on sheet 2174. We would want that question put separately. 12:36 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I'm happy to have the question on the amendment that the minister just flagged put separately from the rest. I move, in respect of the Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2169, amendment (1) on sheet 2170, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2171, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2173 revised, amendment (1) on sheet 2174, amendment (1) on sheet 2175, amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2176, amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 2178, amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2179, amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2180, amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2204 and amendment (1) on sheet 2209; and, in respect of the Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, amendment (1) on sheet 2177, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2202 and amendment (1) on sheet 2211: SHEET 2169 (1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) in conjunction with other laws, give effect to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including by ending segregation in education, employment, accommodation and housing for people with disability; and _____ SHEET 2170 (1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 23), after subclause (7), insert: (7A) People with disability, regardless of age, have the same rights as other people with disability, including to receive supports and services. _____ SHEET 2171 (1) Clause 4, page 5 (lines 2 to 4), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) If this Act requires or permits an act or thing to be done, the act or thing is to be done, so far as is practicable, in accordance with the following: (a) the general principles in this section; (b) the Closing the Gap priority reforms; (c) the Disability Sector Strengthening Plan guiding principles. (2) Clause 8, page 8 (line 2) to page 12 (line 12), insert: Australian Local Government Association means the Australian Local Government Association Limited (ABN 31 008 613 876). Closing the Gap priority reforms means the 4 priority reform areas set out in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. Disability Sector Strengthening Plan guiding principles means the 12 guiding principles set out in the Disability Sector Strengthening Plan that was agreed in principle by the Joint Council on 26 August 2022. Joint Council means the council of: (a) Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers; and (b) a representative nominated by the Australian Local Government Association; and (c) representatives nominated by the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations; that is known as the Joint Council on Closing the Gap. National Agreement on Closing the Gap means the agreement between the Commonwealth, the States, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, the Australian Local Government Association and the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations that took effect on 27 July 2020. _____ SHEET 2173 REVISED (1) Clause 30, page 40 (line 7), after "rules", insert "and guidelines". (2) Page 43 (after line 7), at the end of Part 5, add: 37 National Assistance Animal Guidelines (1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make guidelines for or in relation to the following: (a) the accreditation of assistance animals for people with disability; (b) access to public and private spaces by people with disability with assistance animals. (2) The Minister must make guidelines under subsection (1) before 1 July 2024. (3) Before the Minister makes guidelines under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that: (a) consultation has been undertaken with: (i) such people with disability, as the Minister considers appropriate, who have lived experience of being assisted by assistance animals; and (ii) such representatives of organisations, as the Minister considers appropriate, that advocate for people with disability; and (iii) the Disability Reform Ministerial Council; and (b) relevant input received as part of that consultation has been taken into account adequately. (4) Subsection (3) does not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003. Constitutional basis of this section (5) This section relies on the Commonwealth's legislative powers under paragraph 51(xxix) (external affairs) of the Constitution. Additional operation of this section (6) In addition to subsection (5), this section also has the effect it would have if: (a) a reference to the accreditation of assistance animals for people with disability were expressly confined to the accreditation of assistance animals for people with disability for the purpose of access to: (i) a Commonwealth place; or (ii) a place in a Territory; and (b) a reference to access to public and private spaces by people with disability with assistance animals were expressly confined to access by people with disability with assistance animals to: (i) a Commonwealth place; or (ii) a place in a Territory. Definitions (7) In this section: Commonwealth place means a Commonwealth place within the meaning of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970. Disability Reform Ministerial Council means a body (however described) that consists of the Minister of the Commonwealth, and the Minister of each State and Territory, who is responsible, or principally responsible, for the administration of matters relating to disability reform. _____ SHEET 2174 (1) Clause 8, page 8 (lines 15 to 18), omit paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of advocacy supports or services, substitute: (a) to assist a person with disability to exercise choice or control in matters that affect the person, including the provision of legal services; or (b) to assist a person with disability to understand and advocate for their rights and to uphold and enforce their rights, including the provision of legal services; or _____ SHEET 2175 (1) Clause 8, page 8 (line 5), after "physical environment", insert ", to access and participate in online or digital spaces". _____ SHEET 2176 (1) Clause 8, page 11 (after line 7), after the definition of NDIS Act, insert: out of home supports or services means supports or services to provide short term care for a person with disability as an alternative care arrangement. (2) Clause 8, page 12 (lines 3 to 8), omit the definition of respite care supports or services. (3) Clause 13, page 16 (line 13), omit "respite care", substitute "out of home". _____ SHEET 2178 (1) Clause 14, page 17 (after line 30), after paragraph (3)(a), insert: (aa) must deal with monitoring of compliance with the code of conduct; and (2) Clause 14, page 18 (line 5), omit "may", substitute "must". (3) Clause 20, page 25 (line 10), omit "may", substitute "must". (4) Clause 20, page 25 (after line 20), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) Rules made for the purposes of subsection (1) must not require a person not to comment on, or advocate support for, a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country if the comment or advocacy is lawful. (5) Clause 20, page 25 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add: Periodic review of the code of conduct (4) At least once every 3 years, the Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the code of conduct to be undertaken. (5) The review must be undertaken by at least one person with disability. (6) The person or persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review. (7) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. (6) Page 25 (after line 22), at the end of Division 2, add: 20A Disability Services Commissioner (1) The rules must make provision for or in relation to the establishment of an independent Disability Services Commissioner to monitor, investigate, report and enforce compliance with the code of conduct. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), rules made for the purposes of that subsection: (a) must establish the Disability Services Commissioner; and (b) must establish the Office of the Disability Services Commission with the function of assisting the Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's functions; and (c) must specify the terms and conditions of appointment of the Commissioner; and (d) must specify the functions and powers of the Commissioner, including powers in relation to monitoring, investigating, reporting and enforcing compliance with the code of conduct; and (e) must specify a quota for the employment of people with disability as staff of the Commission; and (f) must provide for the Commissioner to notify the Secretary of any alleged breach, or actual breach, of the code of conduct; and (g) must provide for the Commissioner to perform the Commissioner's functions, and exercise the Commissioner's powers, in way that is efficient and minimises, to the extent possible, duplication of activities undertaken by the Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission; and (h) may create an offence or civil penalty for a breach of the code of conduct. (7) Clause 36, page 42 (line 25), omit paragraph (2)(a). _____ SHEET 2179 (1) Clause 3, page 4 (after line 8), after paragraph (h), insert: (ha) in conjunction with other laws, give effect to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007; and (2) Clause 3, page 4 (line 31), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1". (3) Clause 3, page 4 (after line 33), at the end of the clause, add: Note 2: The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007 could in 2023 be viewed on the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org). _____ SHEET 2180 (1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 19), after subclause (6), insert: (6A) People with disability should be included in a co-design capacity. (2) Clause 8, page 11 (line 31), after "evaluate", insert ", with the involvement of people with disability,". (3) Clause 36, page 43 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add: Co-design of the rules (4) Before the Minister makes rules under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied that the rules are co-designed with people with disability. _____ SHEET 2204 (1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 26 to 29), omit paragraph (e), substitute: (e) promote respect for the inherent dignity, difference and individual autonomy of people with disability and dismantle barriers to inclusion to ensure the full participation of people with disability on an equal basis; and (2) Clause 3, page 3 (line 20), after "to the extent possible", insert "within the powers of the Commonwealth". (3) Clause 3, page 3 (line 23), after "to the extent possible", insert "within the powers of the Commonwealth". _____ SHEET 2209 (1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add: (9) People with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to be protected against discrimination on all grounds, including protection from facilities or activities that result in segregation or isolation. _____ SHEET 2177 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 8 — Amendment of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 1 Section 52 Repeal the section. 2 Application of amendment (1) The amendment made by this Schedule applies in relation to a provision in the Migration Act 1958, or a provision in a legislative instrument made under that Act, that was made before, on or after the commencement of this Schedule. (2) The amendment made by this Schedule applies in relation to a visa application under the Migration Act 1958: (a) made, but not finally determined, before the commencement of this Schedule; or (b) made on or after that commencement. (3) The amendment made by this Schedule applies in relation to any visa in effect on or after the commencement of this Schedule, whether the visa was granted before, on or after that commencement. _____ SHEET 2202 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 20 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 9 — Amendment of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 Age Discrimination Act 2004 1 Paragraph 41( 1)( fba ) Repeal the paragraph. 2 Subsection 41(2C) Repeal the subsection. 3 Application of amendments The repeals of paragraph 41(1)(fba) and subsection 41(2C) of the Age Discrimination Act 2004, made by this Schedule, apply in relation to anything done by a person on or after the commencement of this Schedule. _____ SHEET 2211 (1) Page 1 (line 9) to page 20 (line 22), omit "and Inclusion"(wherever occurring). The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2714 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That was the only one that was seeking to be carved out. The question now is that the remaining amendments be agreed to. 12:37 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I would like to make a short contribution in relation to one of the amendments that Senator Steele-John has moved. Just briefly, I wanted to draw attention to Australian Greens amendments on sheet 2173 on national assistance animal guidelines. I wanted to put on the record that the coalition very strongly support the recommendation or the intent of this amendment by Senator Steele-John. We know that assistance dogs in many instances provide the kinds of changes in the lives of people with disability that make the difference between them being able to live a largely normal life and not. I'd like to draw to the attention of the chamber a very good friend of mine who lives with almost total blindness. His gorgeous seeing-eye dog, Eva, makes so much difference to his life. I discussed this issue with him yesterday, and I know Senator Steele-John also caught up with Chris yesterday and beautiful Eva to discuss this issue. People who live with assistance animals, particularly those that make so much difference to their lives, are very keen to make sure that there is a framework in which we can define the level of service that that animal gives to the person and, more particularly, to make sure that it identifies the level of training that that animal has, because it is so important to make sure that these animals that provide this kind of quality-of-life enhancement to people living with disabilities are seen for the value proposition that they are to those people. Whilst we will support the government in its intention, I believe, to vote against the remaining amendments that have been put forward, I'd like to put on the record that the coalition will be very keen for the government to work with the state and territory ministers through the DRC, or whatever other mechanism it has to make sure that we progress a set of national guidelines, so that we can provide certainty and support to Australians who rely so heavily on assistance dogs. I commend Senator Steele-John for putting forward this amendment and commend the intent, and I ask the government to perhaps indicate its intention to support the intent of this amendment, because of the extraordinary importance of these animals to the lives of people who live with disability. 12:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I agree with the contribution that has been made by Senator Ruston in response to the amendment moved by Senator Steele-John, and I can advise that the Department of Social Services is leading work at officials level right now. Presumably that will work its way up through decision-making processes around nationally consistent guidelines for assistance animals. That work has certainly commenced, and we should keep an eye on it. 12:41 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I will briefly speak to the spirit and substance of the amendments now being considered en bloc by the Senate. The amendments go to a number of areas and are seeking to achieve a number of goals. Firstly, we seek in parts of these amendments to correct basic administrative flaws in the bill that were flagged by disabled people during the inquiry and yet have not been clarified in the bill. We seek in these amendments to do things such as make clear that services and advocacy provided and funded under the bill extend to online and digital spaces. That is not a controversial thing to do. We seek to ensure that the code of conduct put forward by the government is actually enforced and monitored by a dedicated commission which has the capacity and ability to uphold and investigate complaints brought by disabled people. It is not good enough that the government would seek to amend the code of conduct after the fact, after somebody has been abused, neglected or in other ways had their rights violated by one of these services, and it is not realistic or really connected with any kind of reality to expect a department or subsection of DSS to administer and uphold the code of conduct in relation to these services. The minister in her contribution referenced the fact that at the moment there are very few complaints taken to the department in relation to these services administered under the current act. With respect, Minister, that is because a code of conduct does not currently exist. When you bring one into existence, you should hope to find that more people come to the government with complaints or observations about how these services can be improved. We seek in these amendments to give effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Australia has been a signatory to this convention, has ratified this convention, since 2008. One of our amendments simply calls on the government to ensure that no service that is funded under this act violates the principles of our commitments under the UN convention. This should not be a controversial thing to suggest and should have had the government's full support. We seek also to implement basic recommendations given to the government during the course of the inquiry, in relation to how this bill can better support First Nations people through the adoption and implementation of key recommendations and principles within the Closing the Gap framework, to which all government departments administering these services are already committed. If you're already committed to it, put it in the bill. As Senator Ruston flagged in her contribution, we seek to ensure that the government establish a national, consistent framework for the use and ownership of assistance animals and the ability to move through Australia with the support of an assistance animal in the full knowledge that for so many Australians who need such a support, there are far too many complex, varying regulations at the state and territory level, and the people who need these forms of support are so often subject to discrimination and exclusion. We seek also to make basic changes to this act so that it does not enshrine the concept of 'respite' within it at a moment when we need to be moving away from the idea that disabled people are a burden on our friends, families and carers. This act seeks to enshrine the language of 'respite' when it attempts to talk about supported out-of-home accommodation, which is vital, which people need, which plays a key role in facilitating the skills development of disabled people as well as preventing carer burnout. These kinds of programs are really important. It is also really important that we don't justify them or contextualise them within a context which enforces the idea that a disabled person is a burden to their family or their friends. That is not acceptable. That should be simply supported by the government. There are so many holes within this bill that there is no way to sum it up other than as a massive missed opportunity. Disability organisations and the disability community made so many clear recommendations, during the course of the inquiry, into exactly how this bill could be improved. For whatever reason, the government has decided to charge ahead, citing logic that is conflictual and just does not make sense. The Greens put forward these amendments as an opportunity, as an outstretched hand for you to join with the disability community in correcting some of the basic gaps within this legislation so that we may better give effect to what it is that the bill, apparently on the surface, is seeking to do. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 The question is that the amendments on sheets 2169, 2204, 2179, 2171, 2180, 2170, 2209, 2175, 2178, 2173, 2211, 2176, 2177 and 2202, moved en bloc by Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:52]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Neill)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Chair, in the interests of time, if my opposition to the following amendments could be noted, I would appreciate it. They are amendments on sheets 2204, 2176, 2178, 2211, 2177 and 2202. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 Thank you, Senator Pocock. That will be noted. 12:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move government amendments Nos (1) and (2) on sheet ZB271, together: (1) Clause 25, page 32 (line 11), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (d) the person has appropriate internal controls and complaints processes. (2) Clause 25, page 32 (line 18), omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (d)". The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that government amendments Nos (1) and (2) on sheet ZB271 be agreed to. Question agreed to. Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, as amended, agreed to; Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 agreed to. Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 reported with amendments; Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 37 12:56 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. BUSINESS 37 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 37 12:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the considering to legislation. Leave not granted. Senator WONG 00AOU Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the consideration of legislation be moved and determined immediately. I also move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put.

The Senate divided. [13:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 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. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 22 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

13:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the suspension of standing orders as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:05]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 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. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 23 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

13:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. And I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put, as moved by Senator Wong.

The Senate divided. [13:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 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. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 23 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

13:11 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the procedural motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:11]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 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. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 23 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

13:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (): I move: That today: (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 3 pm: Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023 Disability Services and Inclusion (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (c) divisions may take place after 3.30 pm; and (d) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.

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

28 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. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 23 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

13:15 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to make a statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for five minutes. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Here we have it: it's a Friday special, isn't it? It's a Friday special from the Labor Party and the Greens. It's a Friday special almost like a great Friday long lunch, it seems. It's a long lunch where the government doesn't want to work, doesn't want to be accountable and certainly doesn't want to be held to account. For anybody wondering what the Senate just did: it agreed that on four significant pieces of legislation there will be 14 minutes of debate allowed—14 minutes of debate left for four pieces of legislation. Otherwise, the guillotine falls—bang, bang, bang, bang—on each of these bills. That's the way the government is seeking to conduct its business. And they're acting in such bad faith. This morning there were discussions across the government and the opposition agreeing to proceed through the first few bills listed today, and proceed through them we did in an orderly way, a swift way, a way that got the business done but gave every senator the ability to do their job and scrutinise the government's legislation. What do we get in return for that good faith? Bad faith. We get bad faith from the Labor Party, who sneak in, in what is clearly a dirty deal with the Australian Greens, to guillotine these four bills after 14 minutes of debate. What's the price? What's the deal? That's the question. Senator Waters, are you and the Greens going to be honest? What did the Labor Party give you for this deal? What have they offered up for the Greens to be willing to guillotine bills such as a bill on live animal exports. I find it hard to believe the Australian Greens wouldn't want to debate live animal exports. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't want to put their amendments and argue for their amendments. So I find it very hard to believe there isn't something behind the scenes that we don't know about. What is the deal? We've got two social security bills on this list. Do you know how much debate those social security bills have had in this chamber to date? Zero minutes. No time at all has been given to those bills. Now, you might expect—certainly I would expect it, the way the government behave—for them to bowl up and take and get and seize whatever they possibly can. They're showing an addiction to guillotining. They're showing an addiction to cutting off Senate scrutiny. They're showing that they are the complete opposite of what they promised to be prior to the election, when they said they'd be transparent and accountable. Instead, they show nothing but contempt for the workings of the Senate. And the Greens? They're you're talking the ultimate hypocrites. The Australian Greens, who have endlessly lectured governments about the need for scrutiny and the way in which this chamber works, are apparently happy to do these types of deals with the government. The coalition won't stand for it. The coalition will call this type of behaviour out. Bad-faith behaviour does nothing to engender good faith in the future in the way we engage. We can see at times in the way this chamber works that we can manage to work cooperatively and get things done. Oftentimes what we will ask for is to sit longer hours, because we're not afraid of sitting longer hours to ensure there is scrutiny applied to legislation. If it means staying into the night, we're happy to stay into the night. If it means staying longer on a Friday, well, we'll stay longer on a Friday if the pressure is there to get the job done. Yet those opposite just want to get out as quickly as they can. They will do quick and dirty and secret deals with the Australian Greens to be able to get out of here faster. That's why this is like the Friday long-lunch guillotine—the long-lunch guillotine, where they want to be able to get out of here as quickly as possible. They want to have rammed through legislation with no scrutiny, with no ability for amendments to be debated or considered, and, in doing so, they are showing their contempt for the Senate. The Greens don't like being called out. They don't like the fact we know there's got to be a secret deal. We know you've got to have been given something. Why aren't you honest enough to tell us what you've been offered, what the deal is, and why it is that you're willing to walk away from your great moralistic stance on live animal exports and not even debate that issue properly? MOTIONS 41 MOTIONS Climate Change 41 13:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to move general business motion No. 396 standing in my name. Leave not granted. BUSINESS 41 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 41 13:21 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Senator RUSTON 243273 Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making that statement. This is really quite extraordinary. After the debacle that we've seen in this place over the last two weeks, at the very last minute the government manages to get the support of the Greens to come in here and guillotine the remaining bills that are on the Notice Paper. This is after us spending six days on a bill that was largely uncontroversial for the two major parties of government. But, despite every attempt by the opposition to work with the government to try and end up with a deal that would enable the passage of that bill so that we could have gone on to other legislation that was more controversial and needed debate—no. Instead, the belligerence of those opposite meant that that piece of legislation remained sitting on the Notice Paper and was debated for six whole days. The thing that I fail to understand is why the Greens would have agreed to this guillotine in the middle of a bill. Senator Jordon Steele-John has come into this place day after day after day to support the rights of people in Australia who live with disability—on a bill that was so important to him that he moved up to 20 amendments—but the Greens were quite happy to stop Senator Steele-John making his contribution on a bill that was so important to him. They wanted to do this dirty deal because they wanted to get out of here early. I cannot believe that you would sacrifice your principles and something that was so important to one of your own—not only one of your own who thinks that disability support is important but one of your own who lives with a disability and would probably know better than anybody the importance of the impact of the changes that are being put forward by the government with the Disability and Inclusion Bill 2023 and the amendments that he sought to move. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 You can sit there and yell all you like. But I've got to tell you your lack of consistency, commitment and conviction when it comes to the issues you so-called stand up for is an absolute disgrace and shows what an unbelievably shallow group of people the Greens actually are. Senator McKim JKM On a point of order: It is disorderly in the extreme for Senator Ruston, firstly, to reflect on Senator Steele-John in the way that she did and, secondly, to reflect more broadly on a group of senators in this chamber in the way that she did. I ask that she withdraw both of those disorderly statements. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senators, do I need to remind everybody that calling out across the chamber is disorderly—from all sides of the chamber. Please have respect for senators on their feet and remain silent. Senator RUSTON 243273 On the point of order: I would contend that my absolute overt— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Sorry, Senator Ruston, you did withdraw your comments. Senator RUSTON 243273 No, I didn't. On the point of order: I was seeking to give clarification for you that I don't believe that my absolute, overt support for Senator Steele-John, and his intent in coming into the chamber, is something that needs to be withdrawn. If Senator McKim would like me to withdraw a reflection I made around the shallowness of the Greens, I'm more than happy to do that, but I don't believe that there is any need for me to withdraw a comment that was not adverse. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Thank you for clarifying your point, Senator Ruston. I think we will take into account your spirit and the intention of that comment. Thank you for withdrawing your comment in relation to the second point Senator McKim made. Please continue with your remarks. Senator RUSTON 243273 The cold, hard reality is that this motion is just another attempt, firstly, to avoid scrutiny. There are some particularly important bills here. There are a couple of social security bills that have not even had anybody make one comment on them at all. There's also the very important live animal exports bill, which clearly sees a huge amount of dissent around the chamber, but we're all happy to guillotine that as well. I would say: do not come into this place in the last two sitting weeks and ask us if you can have the last week off, because, if you do, the only thing you will be admitting to is that the Labor Party, in coalition with the Greens, would rather go home for an early Christmas than do their job, stand in this place and actually debate the legislation that is before the Senate because of their absolute incompetence in getting their legislative agenda through this year. We saw the debacle of last week. We've seen so many weeks when we've turned up in this place and gotten nothing done because you are not able to negotiate the legislative agenda in the place. You can't manage the chamber. And then, at the final hour, you come in here and do a dirty deal with those at the other end of the chamber to guillotine legislation. I would say the people of Australia are starting to see through the Labor Party. The Labor Party don't want scrutiny, they lack transparency and they'd rather go for Christmas pudding and turkey roast than stay here and do the job that the Australian public elected them to do. 13:26 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Here we are—it's Friday afternoon, and the Labor Party and the Greens have got their tickets booked home. They've got the champagne waiting for them in the chairman's lounge, because they want a long lunch. They do not want to stay here in this chamber and debate critical legislation. They call a big game—they're all about transparency, these two political parties—but they cannot resist cooking up a deal in the last couple of hours to make sure critical legislation receives no oversight and no debate from the senators from Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales, who've all been sent to this place to put that perspective on the public record and not assume that everybody agrees. The Prime Minister can't be bothered to rock up to question time or the House of Reps. He cancels sitting weeks like no-one's business because he doesn't want to be up-front about why his referendum failed and why 60 per cent of Australians don't agree with him. He now wants to silence the Senate from doing our constitutional duty, which is to debate bills, ask questions of ministers on behalf of the Australian public and then vote. What this government has done since coming to power is to reduce sitting hours, reduce scrutiny and reduce oversight from the people's representatives. These guys love a guillotine more than the French loved a guillotine. Today, you are seeing critical bills such as the live animal export bill guillotined, despite the Greens having an army of amendments to that piece of legislation and despite the crossbench wanting to have a conversation. Do you know why? It's because, every time we get up and talk about this government's desire to prohibit live animal exports for sheep and its devastating impact on sheep prices and farming communities around this country, Minister Watt goes to water. He won't leave Perth, and he doesn't want to hear about the negative impact of his policies on our communities. Well, guess what? That's what the Australian parliament is supposed to be about. We're supposed to come here with a diversity of perspectives, sit down, listen to them and then vote appropriately. This Labor government had a debacle last week, when the crossbench got more legislation through than the government did. Senators Pocock and Lambie got through four bills for critical industrial relations legislation. What did the government get through last week? Two bills. They then had to do the deal with the Greens today, and we end up with five or six bills rammed through with no debate and no questioning. It just shows you how cynical the Labor Party is about transparency and accountability. You're all talk, but when it comes to actually living by what you promised the Australian people— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted, and we will move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 43 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Albanese Government 43 13:30 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Here today we've seen the dirty deal between Labor and the Greens to guillotine legislation. What day is it today? Many on this side would know. Senator Henderson ZN4 Friday! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Yes, it is Friday, Senator Henderson, but it's also National Agriculture Day. What's one of the bills that Labor and the Greens have joined together to guillotine? It's a bill on live exports, the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. The bill itself is fairly non-controversial, but the Greens amendments to the bill are highly controversial. They would be fought against by every farmer in this nation. On National Agriculture Day, Labor and the Greens join together to gag debate on these horrendous Greens amendments. We'll see what the Labor government does in terms of these amendments and if they've done some sort of dirty deal with the Greens on these amendments. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Order! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 They will have every Australian farmer up in arms—even more than they are at the moment, because they're already horrified by this Labor government. The survey results show it. Well over 60 per cent of Australian farmers in a NFF survey say that this Labor government has got its policy settings wrong for the bush. They're running a campaign against the anti-farming policies of Labor: things like the ban on live exports, the changes to Australian competition laws, and a visa pathway for agricultural workers, which this government is denying. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Before I call Senator Grogan, can I remind senators in the chamber that if they'd like to make a contribution, they should book themselves in for adjournment this afternoon. The interjections across the chamber— Senator Hughes 273828 There is no adjournment this afternoon. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 It's not for debate, Senator Hughes. It is disorderly. Please let speakers be heard in silence and through the chair. Youth Voice in Parliament 43 13:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise today to thank Raise Our Voice Australia for organising the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. Raise Our Voice's mission is to amplify the voices of young women and gender-diverse people to actively lead conversations in politics and domestic and foreign policy. Today I am very excited to share Emma Eldhose's submission to the campaign. Emma is from South Australia. I'll read out Emma's words: Hi, my name is Emma Eldhose, I'm 13 years old and I live in the Boothby electorate. Undoubtedly, social media and technology have had an impact on today's society. Self-centredness among people has increased noticeably. In the past, people used to make comments on other individuals or their pictures, to show their appreciation of the person. However, there has a rise of the selfie culture. People are more concerned with their own image and how they show themselves online. It's important to understand how this habit is changing our way of thinking. Many people, especially those in the younger generation, have the opinion that achieving our own desires is the only true source of happiness. This mindset prioritizes individuals and often overlooks the broader social context. Let's work to balance our ability to express ourselves and our capacity for empathy. Taking care of our own and others needs is the best way to achieve true happiness. We can build a culture where compassion, kindness, and real human connection flourish by embracing the ideals of connection and responsibility. In addition to improving the lives of others, doing this also helps us discover happiness and meaning in our own lives. Join me in changing the world for the better. We can build a brighter future together. Asylum Seekers 44 13:34 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I want to share the story of a young constituent of mine. She's a Hazara refugee who's currently in year 12 at a school in Hobart. In her own words, 'In Afghanistan under the Taliban, particularly as a Hazara and as a girl, your dreams and your goals and your hopes die.' Over 20 years ago, while living as an Afghan refugee in Iran, my constituent's mum had her two eldest daughters taken from her and given to her ex-husband, who sold them off for money. Fearing the same could happen to her other children, her mum bravely fled. After years of dangerous travel and time spent in horrific conditions in refugee camps, their family arrived in Australia in 2018. They are safe now, and my constituent has a bright and hopeful future ahead of her. But, for her two older sisters, things are worse than ever. They were deported back to Afghanistan in 2022, where they then fled to Pakistan, hoping to be safe while they waited for their Australian humanitarian visas to be processed. The sisters are now subject to Pakistan's forced and violent deportation of around 1.7 million undocumented Afghan citizens from Pakistan back to Afghanistan. Handing women back to the Taliban can be tantamount to a death sentence, particularly when they are from a persecuted minority such as Hazara. The Australian government must process the visas of Afghan family members of people who are in Australia where those members are currently in Pakistan as an urgent priority so that they are able to flee the dangers and persecution they face and reunite in safety with their families who are here in Australia. Aged Care 44 13:36 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania After the 2019 election, when I was appointed to the aged-care portfolio, the number of home-care packages in Australia was projected to reach 157,000 by June 2023. The waiting time for a home-care package was then 12 to 24 months. The then government made significant investments in home-care packages, to the extent that by June 2023 the number of home-care packages in the market was to get to 275,600, fully funded. That would be an addition of 118,600 packages. By the time we got to the May election last year, the waiting time for anyone with a high-needs package was down from 12 to 24 months to less than 30 days. By the last quarter of 2022, the waiting time for a package at any level was 30 to 90 days. Can you imagine my dismay to see that this year the waiting time for a home-care package at any level has blown out to 90 to 180 days? It has gone from 30 to 90 days to 90 to 180 days at all levels. Where is the outrage? Where are the questions that were asked of me about people dying on waiting lists? Where are the inquiries from the media, who have said nothing? Mr Albanese said that he would put the 'care' back into 'aged care', but does he really care? Workplace Relations 44 13:38 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales For two years, Theo has been fighting Qantas in the District Court. Qantas cabin cleaners were told to clean planes arriving from Wuhan without disinfectant, without PPE and with nothing more than dirty rags and spray bottles of water. When Theo, as an elected safety officer, told his colleagues to stop work because it was unsafe, Qantas stood him down, and he never worked another shift. Yesterday, the District Court ruled that, in doing so, Qantas has yet again criminally broken the law. As Theo said yesterday, Qantas was willing to punish someone rather than actually rectify the issue. If not for Theo's bravery, the lives of his colleagues and the travelling public would have been at greater risk. This is a landmark decision. It's more evidence of Qantas's criminal and shameful approach to its workforce. Even more important is what the decision says about workplace delegates' rights in this country. The International Labour Organization has recognised that anti-union and antidelegate discrimination is among the most serious violations of freedom of association. We know delegates are often targeted by dodgy employers like Qantas, and they do not have sufficient protections or rights under our laws. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 would strengthen protections for delegates like Theo. In the inquiry, we've heard from teachers, nurses, aged-care workers and retail workers about their workers delegates, and it is so important. Delegates are a democratically elected voice in the workplace, but groups like Qantas and the Minerals Council don't want their employees to have a real voice in the workplace. Theo's victory shows just how important it is that we look after delegates. To do that, we need to urgently pass the bill and stop criminal gangs like Qantas. Let's close their loopholes. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 45 13:40 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I'm proud to share the words of Arina, a young person from WA, who raises concerns shared by me and many others who have journeyed through the Australian education system. They say: Dear Parliament, My name is Arina, I'm 15 years old and my electorate is Curtin. One issue that I want to see change in is the ATAR program. While it may be viewed as a fair and objective measure of a student's academic performance, I firmly believe that the ATAR system has serious flaws that undermine its effectiveness and ultimately harm our students' well-being. The ATAR system promotes an unhealthy obsession with grades and competition. It reduces the value of education to a mere number, forcing students into a never-ending race for the highest score. It also fails to recognize diverse talents and abilities. Every student has unique skills and strengths that may not necessarily be reflected in their academic performance alone. By solely relying on standardized exams and scores, the ATAR system disregards other crucial aspects of a student's character, such as leadership, community involvement, and creativity. Furthermore, the ATAR system places immense pressure on students, leading to mental health issues. The relentless quest for high scores often results in extreme stress, anxiety, and burnout. Politicians, I strongly urge you to change the ATAR system. We need a system that values individual growth, fosters development, and recognizes the unique talents and abilities of students. Arina, I could not agree with you more. The system needs to change. Until it does, we will have a system that does not recognise the full diversity of student strength. Good luck to all of the students making their way through the ATAR exams at this time. Albanese Government: Immigration Detention 45 13:42 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia In the 30 years I've been working in and around this building, Parliament House, I have never ever witnessed such endemic incompetence from any government, not once—not even close. There is no greater responsibility for any federal government, as I know as a former defence minister, than the security of our nation and the safety of all Australians. It is a complete failure of national leadership and utterly unconscionable that our Prime Minister chose to flee overseas instead of staying to fix his mess. Labor have demonstrated time and time again they are incapable of acting quickly or decisively. The government should have prepared draft legislation the moment the likelihood of the High Court's decision became clear to them, which was in June of this year. If they had, we could have passed legislation last week in this place and in the House this Monday, before any of these criminals were released onto our streets, a third of them in Western Australia. After this negligence, it took them another week to cobble together the grossly inadequate bill they presented yesterday morning, the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. The result was the inevitable trainwreck that unfolded this week, with Peter Dutton saving the government and the Australian people from themselves. In WA, police commissioner Blanch and the Premier have made it very clear we still don't know the consequences for our state. We don't know how many of these criminal detainees were released from the Yongah Hill detention centre in Northam, which houses the very worst of the very worst. We don't even know how they will be monitored in our streets. Western Australia deserves so much better from both of these Labor governments. Workplace Relations 45 13:45 Senator 299352 Victoria STEWART () (): I want to start off by congratulating the mighty Transport Workers Union on yet another victory in the courts. Yesterday, the New South Wales District Court found Qantas guilty for illegally sacking health and safety representative Theo for raising health concerns at the start of the pandemic. This is what happens when our workplace health and safety is up to scratch, and it's about time the fair work legislation is amended and brought to the same standard. I want to talk today about the experience of many ride-share drivers as they suffer under the burden of loopholes that big multinational gig platforms exploit. Under the ride-share share app DiDi, like many other gig platforms, a driver picks up their passenger from point A and takes them to point B. But one loophole in DiDi's policy means that, when the app fails to take money from the passenger's account, DiDi doesn't pay the driver. Put simply, these workers are not getting paid for work that they have done. DiDi and other gig platforms engage these drivers as independent contractors and not as employees. These drivers are driving for DiDi, the trips are requested through DiDi's platform, and DiDi takes a fee out of every fare from drivers. So why aren't DiDi drivers paid for the services they have provided? Every Australian has the right to be paid for the work that they do. Shame on DiDi for this policy and for exploiting loopholes to withhold fares from drivers just trying to make an honest living. Unlike those on the other side, the Albanese Labor government stands on the side of workers. Those opposite are the same coalition who, during their time in government, deliberately drove down wages and turned a blind eye to rampant wage theft. That's not the approach of this government. We want to deliver a better deal for workers around Australia, and that is exactly what we will do with the legislation that is currently before this parliament. I urge all members in this place to end the exploitative practices of big gig— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Faruqi? Occupied Palestinian Territories 46 13:47 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Australians have been lucky to hear from and meet with Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who is not afraid to speak the truth about the occupation of Palestine, about the massacre in Gaza and about the reality of apartheid. She has rightfully said that some Western states are paralysed in their response, with states like Australia muttering inaudible words of condemnation or staying silent in fear of restraining Israel's self-proclaimed right to self-defence, whatever it means. One would have thought that our foreign minister would carve out time to meet with someone as knowledgeable as Francesca Albanese, but perhaps Minister Wong is too afraid to hear the truth about the ongoing massacre in Gaza. The Labor government can look away, but we will not stop talking about Palestine. I see no point in being in parliament if we remain silent at times of such grave injustice. Calls for a ceasefire are becoming stronger and louder every single day. Yesterday the Greens tabled a petition in parliament signed by over 100,000 Australians, including healthcare workers, urging the Labor government to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Lawyers, doctors, artists and writers have signed open letters urging the government to do the same. Tens of thousands of people are marching on the streets, week after week, demanding that the Prime Minister and the foreign minister call for a ceasefire now. Over 11,000 people have been massacred in Gaza. Over 4,000 are children. How many more will be killed before our government calls for an end to these atrocities and the ongoing persecution of Palestinians? We will not stop talking about Palestine. We will keep marching. We will keep protesting until there is a ceasefire and justice for Palestinians— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator David Pocock? Energy 46 13:49 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory This morning, the Parliamentary Friends of Clean Investment, which I co-chair with Senators Grogan and Bragg, hosted Beyond Zero Emissions as they launched their battery supply chains briefing paper, meeting with investors and industry about the exciting opportunities for Australia when it comes to batteries and the transition to renewables. They were talking about the opportunity for Australia to move from 'dig and ship' to processing, the opportunity to capture the maximum amount of value here in Australia. I applaud the Albanese government for adding another $2 billion to the Critical Minerals Facility, which the former government set up. But I raise concerns that there are no safeguards that ensure that's actually used for processing. We learnt at estimates that that facility could be used just to fund mining. We need to be focusing on making more things here when it comes to building our economy for the future and in terms of our national security at a time when we are so reliant on countries like China for solar panels. There are opportunities to make things here, and the longer we delay a comprehensive response like the Inflation Reduction Act, the biggest climate and energy investment in history, the longer we're going to miss out on these opportunities. I will continue to push the government on things like production tax credits, paying for success and only paying once companies are manufacturing things like solar cells here. We can do it. We need the political leadership and courage and the right policies in place to unlock that investment here in Australia. National Disability Insurance Scheme 46 13:51 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales The Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS is a committee that generally works in a bipartisan way, making recommendations constructively together after a series of inquiries. These inquiries looking into the NDIS and how it can be improved happen every year. We hear from participants and their families carers and loved ones and providers and people working with the service. Each of those inquiries makes a series of recommendations. This year marks 10 years since this committee started, and we're still compiling and then we will be releasing a retrospective on the recommendations that have been made and which of them have been adopted by the agency. This process is really concerning because I can think of a number of recommendations that we have made multiple times that still have not been acted on. These are things like the way that participants' plans are modelled. The government at the moment is putting in these ridiculous buckets of money. I remember asking someone, 'Can you tell me whether teaching someone to cross the road and use money is community participation or a daily living skill, and which bucket of money does that go in?' This is the ludicrous nature of it, but unfortunately the NDIA has not taken on board these recommendations that come with a bipartisan spirit and are usually fully endorsed with every little dissenting comment. So far the agency has refused to act on the advice it has been given. This is coupled with the fact that this Labor government is now hiding behind the financials of the agency and the NDIS. The NDIS is a very important scheme for millions of Australians and their families, and we need to ensure that it remains sustainable. Yet this government will not release the figures and consistently moves the dates for when figures are being released. The government specifically did not release the latest figures until after the last joint standing committee report was submitted. We know that they cannot meet the targets they want to meet and that they are going to cut this program. Child Labour 47 13:53 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I proudly advise the Senate that on the next sitting day I'll introduce One Nation's Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023. There have been many attempts to ban products with child labour in their supply chains—all have failed. The reasons were always the same. Including adult slave labour and child labour in the same bill ensures failure. These are two different problems needing two different solutions. Adult slave labour is a contentious issue which has always failed on the definition of slave labour. It's best dealt with politically. Child labour, on the other hand, has a clear definition from the International Labour Organization. If a child misses school, or would miss school if school were available, in order to engage in work, that's child labour. My bill imposes escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply chain, leading eventually to a complete ban. This approach gives companies time to fix their supply chain, and it allows ethical companies time to ramp up production and meet increased demand. It gives offending suppliers time to move from employing children to instead employing adults from the same area. However, a knee-jerk solution to immediately ban products with child labour in their supply chain would be disastrous for the economies of the countries hosting industries currently using child labour. This is why governments in these countries have had little appetite to address the issue. These children would be in school and their parents in a job if it were not for rich Western countries looking the other way because everyone loves cheap electronics, clothing and coffee. I ask all senators for their support when the bill is brought to a vote early next year. I would welcome discussion with the minister on a government led solution. Universities: Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault 47 13:55 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland University students deserve safety on campus and in residential halls, yet we know that this is so often not their experience. Two hundred and seventy-five students each week are reporting assaults on campuses across the country, according to the 2021 national student safety survey, and we know that survey was done during COVID, when attendance was down, so we know the figures are likely to be higher. Without major changes, thousands of students are at risk. Universities are covering up sexual assaults and protecting their brands instead of their students, while the sector regulator, TEQSA, has been missing in action. Students and advocates including End Rape on Campus, Fair Agenda and the STOP campaign have been calling for an independent body that holds universities accountable for the safety of students on campus and in residential halls. An independent body to hold universities accountable was also one of the recommendations from the consent laws inquiry report that received support across this chamber from all political parties. Today we read that the government is finally floating the idea of a national ombudsman to field students' complaints and hold unis to account. That is encouraging. Federal, state and territory education ministers are meeting next Tuesday to negotiate changes to university governance, and I'm calling on education ministers, including the federal minister, to endorse the establishment of a national ombudsman as a matter of urgency. We don't mind what it's called—'task force' or 'ombudsman'—as long as it is independent, expert led and transparent, with an effective complaints avenue, and actually enforces meaningful accountability for those universities that don't make the grade. I'm calling on the government to establish this national ombudsman and to ensure that it's sufficiently resourced without further delay. National Security 47 13:57 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Having been a member of the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media, I can tell the Senate that the damage that foreign interference is doing and can do to Australian society is vast, scary and something we should all be aware of, particularly in the context of the increased protests, agitation and antisemitism surrounding the current conflict in Gaza. In my own home town, I have seen the heartbreaking division of our community and the breakdown of social cohesion, with families living in fear and children refraining from speaking their mother tongue to avoid hatred. People are being set upon and businesses razed to the ground. Where is this hatred coming from? This is not Australia. Who is stoking the flames of discord? While we hold the democratic right to voice our opinions, this should never be used to make others feel unsafe, endanger the harmony we all hold dear or destroy our social cohesion. We must acknowledge the role foreign interference has exacerbating such disruptions. In today's digital age, foreign actors exploit new avenues to manipulate public opinion and sow discord, particularly through social media platforms. This poses a significant threat to our nation's unity and wellbeing. The Department of Home Affairs must diligently identify sources, safeguard our values and protect our communities so that we can remain living in harmony with one another as Australians. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 48 13:59 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I'm grateful for this opportunity to deliver a speech written by Tara Innes as part of the Raise Our Voice program. 'I'm Tara, a 20-year-old resident of the Tangney electorate in Western Australia, a state that still sends children as young as 10 to prison. What better way to create a brighter future for Australia's upcoming generations than by preventing their entry into the prison system? Children are exceptionally vulnerable to harm, and their interaction with the criminal justice system can inflict lifelong developmental trauma, especially given that their brains are still in the crucial stages of growth. Shockingly, nearly 90 per cent of our incarcerated children in WA have severe mental impairments, which only worsen in the prison environment. Despite an abundance of evidence, recommendations and viable alternatives, Australian states and territories persist in convicting children as young as 10. The current system lacks support for rehabilitation, with approximately 55 per cent of incarcerated children in WA returning to prison within a year, perpetrating a vicious cycle of crime. It's clear that prisons do more harm than good. We urgently need to commit to raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 nationwide. Let's redirect young people towards meaningful rehabilitation rather than detention.' Thank you, Tara. Young voices need to be heard in our government and are valuable in the decision-making process. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 48 14:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My question is to the acting Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, following the recent High Court decision, how many of the 84 detainees, including paedophiles, rapists, murderers and a contract killer, so far released into the community does the government intend to force to wear ankle monitoring or tracking devices? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I appreciate the courtesy of the way in which the senator addressed me. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Watt says the Senate is taking over. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU It's Friday, isn't it! I just make this point. We all know that the High Court decision that is at the heart of that question overturned a 20-year precedent. We all know that the Commonwealth government, the Albanese government, submissions were against the decision. We all know that there was a bill that came to the parliament, appropriately. Both parties of government agreed it was urgent and agreed we were willing to work together— Senator Scarr 282997 President, direct relevance. The question specifically goes to what tracking and monitoring security factors have been adopted in relation to this cohort of serious criminal offenders. How many detainees are subject to those monitoring requirements? It doesn't need a preamble in relation to history. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Scarr. It also went to the High Court decision, but I'll remind. Senator WONG 00AOU We agreed pragmatically to work with you—both parties of government—to resolve this to act in the national interest, and every one of your amendments was agreed. So what I say to the opposition is: don't continue to just try to make conflict with this. Don't continue to just focus on division, because what we saw yesterday was a pragmatic agreement to operate in the national interest. The advice I have in relation to the electronic monitoring is that the condition will be mandatorily imposed on all bridging visa holders in the NZYQ affected cohort. That's obviously a decision for the minister. The condition may be lifted only if the minister determines that the individual poses no community safety risk. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I should say my intention is not to provoke a conflict but to ask questions relating to the safety of the Australian community. In a similar tone: Acting Prime Minister, could you say how many of the 84 detainees the government intends to impose a curfew upon? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I am also advised that the curfew condition will be mandatorily imposed on all bridging visa holders in the NZYQ affected cohort. The condition may be lifted only if the minister determines the individual poses no community safety risk. The duration of the curfew is limited to a maximum continuous period of eight hours, with the default hours set at 10 pm to 6 am each day. The curfew limits the ability of the visa holder to depart the place at which they are ordinarily required to be during curfew hours, which would ordinarily be the person's residential address. I'll just respond to the comments that Senator Scarr made. We're all focused on the safety of the Australian people and the safety of the Australian community. We are all focused on it, and it ought not be an issue for political division. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, second supplementary? 14:05 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, when will these measures to protect the safety of the Australian community from paedophiles, rapists, murderers and a contract killer actually be implemented? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I refer to my previous answers, which went to the mandatory electronic monitoring and the mandatory curfew. If the question is about the royal assent, I will check where the passage of the bill is. Infrastructure 49 14:05 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland 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 end the Liberal and National parties' legacy of rorts and waste and deliver the infrastructure that Australia needs. How does the government's response to the infrastructure review deliver for my home state of Queensland? Opposition senators interjecting— The 10000 Order on my left! 14:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't know why it is that at the mere mention of the words 'rorts' and 'waste' we hear a lot of noise coming from the National Party. There's this Pavlovian response from the National Party every time we hear about rorts and waste. Senator Green, thank you very much for your question, because it gives me an opportunity to highlight how the Albanese government is delivering for infrastructure in Queensland. Of course, yesterday the Albanese government announced our response to the independent review of the Infrastructure Investment Program. That review was a shameful indictment on the Liberals and Nationals that found $33 billion in cost blowouts, which would have stopped any new infrastructure projects until 2033, not to mention driving inflation up. Our response to the review will reform the federal government's investment to deliver an infrastructure program that is funded and can actually be delivered, including in Queensland. And there is plenty of good news for Queensland in yesterday's announcement—all up, over $2 billion in extra funding for Queensland infrastructure, including— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Hughes! Senator WATT 245759 Have a listen to the list! The funding includes an extra $1.7 billion towards the Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail upgrade, an extra $70 million for the M1 Pacific Motorway, an extra $27 million for the Centenary Bridge Upgrade, an extra $46 million for the Boundary Road level crossing project, an extra $8.9 million for the Bribie Island road project and an extra $3 million for the Beenleigh Road connection. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath. Senator McGrath 217241 I'm reluctant to do this, but a point of order on relevance: he hasn't mentioned Emu Swamp Dam. The PRESIDENT 112096 That is a debating point. Minister. Senator WATT 245759 We're also contributing additional funding towards Chambers Flat Road in Park Ridge, Charters Towers Industrial Precinct Access, Loganlea Road upgrades, Shute Harbour Road upgrades and road extensions in Hervey Bay. And, of course, where the Liberals and Nationals failed to properly fund and even start construction on the Rockhampton Ring Road, we're actually getting on with it, delivering it and funding it, with early works having started, allocating an additional $347 million towards Rocky. Senator WATT 245759 You're welcome, Senator Canavan. We're happy to do what you couldn't do any day of the week. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, a first supplementary? 14:08 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland It is clear the Albanese Labor government is focused on delivering for communities right across Queensland, while the Liberals and Nationals were only interested in press releases and colour-coded spreadsheets. How does the government's response to the infrastructure review also deliver for New South Wales? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I've called you a number of times this question time. You are being disrespectful. 14:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That's another very good question, Senator Green. Again, I don't know what it is about colour-coded spreadsheets that sets the National Party off. Is there something you're ashamed of there? New South Wales is an example of how bad it can get when the coalition is in power, both federally and at a state level. Instead of nation-building infrastructure you get car parks that can't be delivered, and in the case of the great Great Western Highway, instead of coordinated and strategic infrastructure investment, we experienced the Morrison government funding two ends of a road project on the condition that the state government funded a tunnel in the middle. The only problem was that there was no money for the tunnel. So the Morrison government had two ends of a road with nothing in between. Rob Sitch was here the other night for the ABC special, but even he would have been surprised to find a far-fetched proposal like that for an episode of Utopia. That is how the Morrison government ran. That is how the Joyce leadership of the National Party ran. We are cleaning up the waste. We are delivering extra funding for New South Wales. We are delivering more infrastructure. We are going to do what you never managed to get around to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, a second supplementary? 14:10 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland How does the government's response to the infrastructure review address the inflationary pressures that the Liberals and the Nationals ignored? 14:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As we know from the infrastructure review, the economic mismanagement we saw around infrastructure from the Liberals and Nationals was astounding. They oversaw cost blowout after cost blowout and failed to act. Our response to the review provides a forward plan of projects that are properly planned, properly targeted and properly funded. They will actually happen. That means investment that will grow the economy, improve productivity and take pressure off inflation. Earlier in the week I pointed out the disagreement that seems to exist between the Liberals and the Nationals about whether we should spend more money or less. We've had Senator Bragg and Senator Hume and others out there saying, 'We need a contractionary budget. Spend less', while we have Senator McKenzie saying, 'Spend, spend; more, more.' But what I've learned is that Senator McKenzie can't even agree with herself about her position on this, because at the same time that she's been out there calling for more infrastructure funding, just this week she actually called on the government to rein in our spending. What do you want us to cut? What do you want? Do you want more spending or less? Economy 50 14:12 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, you have twice this week claimed that, even though inflation peaked at a lower level in Australia than in other advanced economies, it makes sense for inflation to be higher than in those countries. You also repeatedly cite international factors as the driver of Australia's inflation rate, yet core inflation is now higher in Australia than in six of the G7 economies. Minister, do you have any idea how nonsensical your explanations are sounding? Do you even understand how inflation works, as Senator Watt just proved he didn't? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (): The answer to that is yes. You might not like my answer, but— Senator GALLAGHER ING No, the last part of the question was: do I understand it? In relation to the inflation challenge, I accept that you don't like the answer I give or that you're trying to pretend that there aren't global factors that are leading to the inflation challenge in the Australian economy, but whether it has been the cuts to oil production, the war in Ukraine or events in the Middle East, there is no doubt those global factors are weighing on the Australian economy. I've made that clear. When you go and look through the data you'll see— Senator GALLAGHER ING Again, I know you don't like the answer, but it has peaked in Australia as well and is coming down. It is not coming down as fast as we'd like—that's for sure—and I think we've been saying that for some time now. But the job of the government in dealing with the inflation challenge has been to ensure that we can provide cost-of-living relief without adding to it so as to get the budget in much better shape, which we have done and which I also acknowledge that you don't like. We've delivered the first surplus in 15 years. We've returned upward revisions to revenue to the budget to get the budget in much better shape. We've found $40 billion worth of savings, savings that you never found and were incapable of finding. Indeed, when you went looking for savings, let's remember who you pursued. You pursued through robodebt $4 billion worth of savings to the budget bottom line that turned out to be from Australian citizens on income support who you then hounded and threatened with jail. That is the way you ran the budget. Let us not forget that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales The Treasury secretary has acknowledged that Labor's policy to increase immigration by 715,000 people over two years is putting increased pressure into housing and rental markets. Minister, is the rate of immigration and population growth adding to inflation? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't accept that that is what the Treasury secretary has said. I think it's thoroughly unsurprising, Senator Hughes, that you would come in here and verbal the Treasury secretary, as you choose to verbal a whole range of people—not you individually but the opposition as a whole. I don't accept that. I also don't accept— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, find me the bit where he blames— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes 273828 I'm making a point of order. Please sit down. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I'll remind you to wait for the call. And I'll remind all senators that interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Senator Hughes. Senator Hughes 273828 President, perhaps you could remind the minister to direct her comments through you and not make imputations about senators by using 'you' while pointing at them in a specific way. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hughes. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I am more than willing— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, would you like to hear the response? I am more than willing to remind senators to address their answers to the chair. And I will once again take this opportunity to remind senators that interjections are disorderly. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you very much. I do challenge the way that Senator Hughes has framed that question. In terms of the increases in net overseas migration that we've been seeing—and I answered a question earlier in the week on this, in relation to the fact there haven't been any changes in policy settings—what we have seen is an increase in the number of— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X A point of order on direct relevance: the question wasn't about whether there were policy changes to net overseas migration. The question was whether the rate of immigration and population growth is adding to inflation. The Minister for Finance and the Treasurer actually addressed the connection and the impact on inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. The question also went to comments the Treasury secretary had made. They went to immigration, they went to housing, they went to rents and they went to inflation, and the minister is being relevant. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING In relation to the pressures on the housing market, they've been as a result of a decade of neglect by you. That's the result. That's what we've seen, and you voted against our policy to seek to address it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, thank you. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X I rise on a further point of order, President, to seek that you bring the minister to the question and to ask you, President, when this chamber comes back to bring to the chamber a sense of ruling guidelines as to how questions can be structured such that they may actually have a test of direct relevance enforced. That's because the ruling you made before essentially means that if any word is contained in a question then you are going to deem it to be directly relevant if the minister somehow hangs off of that word. In that case it makes no difference as to how a question is worded, how specific a question can be; it is just, President, the fact— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator— Senator Birmingham H6X that you are allowing a word association game to take place. Senator Wong 00AOU President— Senator Birmingham H6X She hasn't given you the call yet, Senator Wong. You don't just get to stand and speak. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Birmingham H6X She's the President. She can sit me down and then give you the call; you don't get to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Birmingham, I've taken your point of order. If you will— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I will just respond to Senator Birmingham. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order: I was seeking the call, and you—through you, President—the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate also doesn't get to dictate how this chamber runs. Senator Wong 00AOU Well, I was seeking the call. Senator Wong 00AOU Are you finished? Senator Birmingham H6X You didn't wait for me to finish. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong 00AOU Well, I'm very happy for Senator Birmingham to have a look at how much time he just took with a point of order. But, on the point of order: it has never been the case that the opposition or the chamber can dictate to the President precisely how they rule on points of order relating to direct relevance. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McGrath! Senator Wong 00AOU I would make this point: the most we on this side got when over there was precisely what this President is doing, which is to draw a minister to the question, consistent with what President Ryan did. I know you'd like a different ruling than the ones that have been in place for a very long period of time, but I'd submit to you, President, that you ought not be required to come back with the sort of document that he requests, because you are entirely consistent with the rulings of the past Presidents. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I will say I think you quoted me out of context. I simply referred to statements made by the Treasury secretary. I did not go to some kind of single-word analysis. As you are well aware, a minister, in responding to a question, is able to respond to the entirety of the question, and the minister is also entitled to respond to interjections. I have tried very hard, as I do every single question time, to ask for silence in this chamber. I very rarely get it. If senators want their questions answered, then I would suggest no interjections, and, where necessary, I will draw the minister back to the question, as I do, and have done this week. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING I would just point out that the steps we've taken to address pressures in the housing market have been opposed by those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, a second supplementary? 14:21 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales There are lots of words in this question, so we'll see how we go and whether we get an answer. When the second Albanese budget was handed down, economists criticised it as being an expansionary budget that would keep inflation higher for longer. For months, Labor denied its budget would keep inflation higher for longer. Yet now the Treasurer and finance minister repeatedly state that inflation is staying higher for longer. Weren't the experts right in their critique of your budget? The Albanese government clearly botched its budget. (Time expired) 14:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No, I reject that. I also reject the assertions, as implied by Senator Hughes, that there was this unanimous view by economists— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes! Senator GALLAGHER ING which is absolutely incorrect. Senator Wong 00AOU President, you have called Senator Hughes a number of times. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU I'm making a point of order. Point of order: you've called Senator Hughes a number of times. I'd ask you to call her again so the minister can complete her answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I did call you. I expect you to respect that call and to cease your interjections. Senator GALLAGHER ING I used a quote yesterday about the view of the International Monetary Fund, which, if we listen to what they have said, called our fiscal policies prudent and a fiscal stance supportive of reducing inflation, and that our budget strategy has seen Australia move up the global league table for fiscal management—again, from the IMF. Australia is expected to have the fourth strongest budget balance as a share of GDP amongst G20 countries, up from 15 in 2021. Let's have a listen to that and not listen to the incorrect assertions by Senator Hughes. We have been very cautious around our fiscal stance to ensure that it doesn't add to the inflation challenge. Universities: Physical and Sexual Harassment and Violence 53 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. The 10000 Senator Faruqi, I'm sorry. Senator Hughes, I called you to order, and you've continued to interject. I now have called Senator Faruqi to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, do not argue with me! You're not in a debate with me. I am calling you to order. You are out of order. Senator Faruqi, please start your question from the beginning. Senator FARUQI 250362 Thank you, President. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. News reports today say that Minister Clare is considering the idea of a national student ombudsman to protect students from physical or sexual assaults on campus or in university accommodation. Minister, sexual violence on campuses is widespread and systemic. Hundreds of students are sexually assaulted every single week. Every student has the right to be safe at uni, but it's clear universities have failed to protect students and that the government must step in. Tireless campaigning from advocates, including EROC, Fair Agenda, and the STOP Campaign, has brought the government to the table to finally act. Minister, can you confirm that the government— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie, you've been called to order. Senator Faruqi, please continue. Senator FARUQI 250362 Thank you, President. Minister, can you confirm that the government will set up a national student safety ombudsman with real teeth which is independent, transparent, and has expert-led oversight of universities? 14:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Faruqi. I am in agreement with you that there is a very serious problem when it comes to sexual violence on Australian university campuses, and this is something the Albanese government takes very seriously. The 2021 National Student Safety Survey found that 16.1 per cent of students had been sexually harassed and 4.5 per cent of students had been sexually assaulted during their time at university. And, as I'm sure you're aware, Senator Faruqi, in last month's NTEU sexual harassment survey report, 29 per cent of respondents said they had had a personal experience of sexual harassment while 50 per cent said they were aware of others who had been sexually harassed. Those figures are simply not good enough. The Australian Universities Accord interim report, released earlier this year, made five recommendations, and one of these is the need to improve university governance, with a focus on ensuring students' safety on campus. As you'd be aware, Senator Faruqi, the Minister for Education, Mr Clare, has established a working group with representatives from each state and territory and has appointed Ms Patty Kinnersly to this working group. Ms Kinnersly is the CEO of Our Watch, a national leader in the primary prevention of violence against women and children in Australia. The minister has previously told the parliament that it's time to act and that universities have not done enough. He's met with representatives from the STOP campaign, End Rape on Campus, and Fair Agenda. Amongst many things, they raised issues regarding residential colleges, lack of information on how to make a complaint, and the lack of formal feedback following a complaint. Turning to the issues around the ombudsman, the working group is expected to deliver draft recommendations to education ministers next week. The minister has already said that they are considering a number of actions, including the establishment of a national student ombudsman. The minister has also said that the status quo is not good enough and that this government is serious about making a difference on this very important issue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary? 14:26 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, students are suffering from violence on campus right now, so action cannot wait any longer. When will the government set up an independent body or a national student safety ombudsman to hold universities accountable for failing to keep students safe? 14:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Faruqi, as I said, the working group that minister Clare established is due to report back and provide draft recommendations to education ministers next week. They are expected to include the establishment of a national student ombudsman. Education ministers have been briefed by the chair of the working group on early considerations for ensuring student and staff safety. One of those emerging recommendations—and we'll have to wait and see what the report says—is a new national student ombudsman. Any such new body would need to have teeth to meet the needs and expectations of students across Australia. The full scope of draft recommendations is being finalised by the working group and will be provided to education ministers for consideration. I give Minister Clare credit for taking on this issue. It's something that has needed doing for quite some time. Let's hope this ombudsman gets up and running soon and can actually start making a difference on university campuses. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary? 14:28 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, TEQSA, the higher education regulator, has been totally missing in action on student safety. Shamefully, TEQSA has failed to even investigate complaints of sexual violence. And in estimates we learned that they've totally canned their reworking of a good-practice note on addressing sexual violence in higher education. Minister, will the government commit to an independent inquiry into TEQSA to ensure that the failures of TEQSA are never repeated again? 14:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Faruqi, and you're right: issues regarding the performance of TEQSA have been raised at Senate estimates committee hearings. And again, as you would be aware, the government is already undertaking a review of the higher education sector through the Universities Accord process, and one of the things being considered through that process is TEQSA's role. I would expect, then, that the issues you're raising are exactly the types of things that are being considered as part of that Universities Accord process, in addition to other issues that have arisen in relation to TEQSA. The final report from the Accord panel will be provided to government by the end of this year. We'll of course consider those recommendations, and should they have anything to say about TEQSA then I'm sure Minister Clare will be taking the appropriate action. Health Care 54 14:29 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Gallagher. Health workers are the backbone of our health system. For people confronted with a cancer diagnosis, navigating their cancer treatment journey can be overwhelming. Cancer nurses provide invaluable support to patients who are confronting some of their toughest days. Could the minister please update the Senate on the landmark funding announced today to deliver more cancer nurses and additional cancer care for patients? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bilyk for the question. I can confirm that today the Albanese government has announced the biggest investment in cancer nurses on record. I know this is a matter close to your heart, and I note the attention that you have placed on health services and cancer services through your work in the Senate. Today's announcement builds on the government's combined investment of over $500 million to establish the National Lung Cancer Screening Program and improve cancer outcomes for First Nations people with cancer announced earlier this year. With the recent release of the Australian Cancer Plan developed by Cancer Australia and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cancer Plan developed by the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, it's timely that the government is announcing this funding today. For people who are confronted with a cancer diagnosis, navigating their cancer treatment journey can be overwhelming. That's why we're investing in additional support for patients during this time. The government is committing $166 million for a first-of-its-kind Australian cancer nursing and navigation program. The program will improve cancer outcomes across Australia from cancer prevention and early detection through to recovery, treatment, survivorship and end-of-life care. It will ensure people have access to the resources and support they need to better navigate their cancer journey. I'm proud that this government is building on the McGrath Foundation's well-established cancer nursing model to recruit a hundred new cancer care nurses in health and hospital services across the country who will support all people with cancer, regardless of their cancer type. We have asked the McGrath Foundation to lead the cancer care nurse program in partnership with the cancer sector, including organisations like the Lung Foundation Australia, the Melanoma Institute Australia and Rare Cancers Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, first supplementary? 14:32 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thank you, minister, for your answer. I'm pleased to learn of the government's response to the high-quality, multidisciplinary and integrated cancer services for all people with cancer. Can the minister provide more details on the cancer navigation service announced today and other programs to support cancer patients through their diagnosis and treatment and beyond? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bilyk for the supplementary. We want to ensure that everyone with cancer gets the care that they need when and where they need it, whether that be lung cancer or a rare cancer. We also recognise the depth of experience the cancer sector has in delivering specialised support to their patients. This is why we'll also be funding these organisations to deliver specialised telehealth support to patients across the country, integrating care with their cancer care nurse in hospital. This funding will also see the Cancer Council of Australia connecting people with cancer to information and support relevant to their needs through a new cancer navigation service. And it will see Canteen, in collaboration with Camp Quality and Redkite, continue the very successful child and youth cancer hub and Canteen Connect programs which are vital to young Australians experiencing cancer and the individual needs that they have. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, second supplementary? 14:33 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thank you, Minister, for that answer too. It's really positive news. Can the minister please further outline how these investments are complementing the significant investments already made in the Albanese government's first two budgets to improve cancer outcomes across Australia from cancer prevention and early detection through to recovery, treatment, survivorship and end-of-life care? 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bilyk for that supplementary. The government is making this record investment in our trusted nursing workforce and the broader cancer sector so that they can get on with the job of providing comprehensive care to people with cancer now and into the future. We have also announced today that the Albanese government is investing $48.2 million to support implementation of a national strategy for the elimination of cervical cancer in Australia. These investments build on the government's other significant investments through the 2023-24 budget to establish the National Lung Cancer Screening Program, support the Aboriginal and Community Controlled Health Organisation sector to support cancer care needs of First Nations people on the ground and ensure mainstream cancer care services are culturally safe and accessible to First Nations people. These measures take the Commonwealth's investment in improving cancer outcomes to almost $2.5 billion over the next four years, excluding the cost of Medicare services and pharmaceuticals. (Time expired) Queensland: Emu Swamp Dam and Pipeline 56 14:34 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Minister, why is the Australian government no longer proceeding with construction of the Emu Swamp dam and pipeline located near Stanthorpe in our state of Queensland? 14:35 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Roberts. I welcome a question about Queensland infrastructure from a Queensland senator on the other side of the chamber. It's a shame people like Senator McGrath didn't manage to get a question up about these important issues. Senator McGrath, of course, is just reduced to interjections, rather than asking serious questions about these matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 You don't want to hear that? You don't want to hear about your failures on infrastructure? If you've heard what I've had to say this week, Senator Roberts, you'll know that the infrastructure budget that we inherited from the coalition was hopelessly overblown. There was a budget blowout of $33 billion. Senator Birmingham H6X I rise on a point of order. This is actually a good example of the type of point of order that I made before. Senator Roberts asked a question about a particular infrastructure project, the Emu Swamp dam. That should not then be a licence for the minister to go off talking about infrastructure projects in general, or the former government in general. It was clearly a question specific to a particular project, and the minister should be drawn to answer on that project. Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order, I can recall many times when coalition ministers went much farther than 41 seconds in before they even got close to the question. I'd remind you of Senator Brandis. We all remember Senator Brandis when he was sitting in this chair. Senator Birmingham H6X And I can remember you sitting in this chair and what you had to say. Senator Wong 00AOU And I never got very far with that argument, but hope beats eternal. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick! Senator Watt 245759 Poor old Gerard. You're not going to be here long, though, are you? Enjoy it while you're here, Gerard. Senator Henderson ZN4 That is really nasty, Senator Watt. You're a nasty piece of work. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Henderson, I ask you to withdraw that remark. Senator Henderson ZN4 Can I take a point of order? The PRESIDENT 112096 I've asked you to withdraw the remark, Senator Henderson. Senator ZN4 I wish to make a point of order, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I've asked you to withdraw your remark. Senator Henderson ZN4 I withdraw, but can I take a point of order? The PRESIDENT 112096 If you sit down, I will entertain a point of order—as long it's not on me asking you to withdraw. Thank you. Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson ZN4 I rise on a point of order. Senator Watt just made a very uncalled for and offensive remark in relation to Senator Rennick, and I would ask him to withdraw it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, I didn't hear any remark. The chamber was incredibly disorderly at the time. All I can do is ask Senator Watt, if he made a personal reflection on Senator Rennick, to withdraw that. Senator Watt 245759 I'm happy to withdraw. Senator Rennick has a lot to say. I'm happy to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, before I call you again, I will draw your attention back to Senator Roberts's question. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Roberts, I was explaining the basis for the decisions. The particular project that you're talking about that won't be proceeding is a road to a dam that is not proceeding. This government thinks that it's a good idea, if you're spending infrastructure money on a road, that it should be a road that leads to something that is actually happening and exists. That dam was a promise that was made by the former coalition government that never had the funding, wasn't properly planned and is not proceeding. Senator Roberts, I know you're someone who cares very much about the appropriate use of taxpayers' funds. You would agree, I'm sure, that it's not a good use of taxpayers' funds to build roads that lead to dams that don't exist and won't exist. But, Senator Roberts, I'm sure you'd also be pleased to have heard me talk about some of the projects in Queensland that are getting funding and that are only possible because of those sorts of decisions about the responsible allocation of funding. Because of that we can now fund the cost increase in the Rockhampton Ring Road project with an extra $348 million in addition to the money that the federal government had allocated. I know Central Queensland is an area that you're interested in, Senator Roberts. By cutting projects that won't exist and that aren't needed, we can fund other things like that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Your government cancelled the Emu Swamp dam. This water infrastructure would have created 700 jobs, 250 jobs during construction. Your government decision has axed these jobs—gone. Why is the Albanese government hollowing out the bush? 14:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Roberts, I have to reject the premise of your question. Far from the Albanese government hollowing out the bush, especially when we're talking about infrastructure projects, the very announcements we made yesterday not only guaranteed funding for dozens of regional and rural infrastructure projects but, in many cases, actually increased the funding for those projects. We have the opposition saying that there are cuts. I fail to grasp how giving the Rockhampton Ring Road $348 million more money is a cut. To me, that seems like more money, rather than less. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, on a point of order? Senator Roberts 266524 It's a matter of relevance. I'm not talking about the Rockhampton Ring Road; I'm talking about the Emu Swamp dam. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister referred to that part of your question when he first got to his feet. Senator WATT 245759 It is the case that there are some projects—some in the cities, some in the bush—that we have decided cannot proceed because there is no funding for them, there is no business case for them, or their costs have blown out so much that they are simply unaffordable. But at the same time, by making those sorts of decisions, we can fund things like the Rockhampton Ring Road. We can fund things like the Charters Towers industrial precinct access. Senator McKenzie 207825 Some of them have started. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Senator WATT 245759 We can fund things like the Shute Harbour road upgrades. There are many things in regional Australia that we are funding. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts. Senator Roberts 266524 During the recent drought— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, just wait, please. I think this is your second supplementary. 14:41 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland During the recent drought, Stanthorpe had to resort to water tankers to keep residents supplied with drinking water. The previous government set about fixing that failure of government with this modest dam proposal, Emu Swamp, of just 24 gigalitres. Now your government is axing this project. What are the growing number of residents in the area going to drink? 14:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I've already explained, Senator Roberts, unfortunately for the good people of the Southern Downs, the Emu Swamp dam project and pipeline didn't have a proper feasibility case and didn't have a proper business case. What it did have was a promise from a coalition who had no intention of delivering it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, your parallel interjections as if you are answering the question are disrespectful. I have called you to order over and over again. I am asking you to be silent. Senator WATT 245759 As I said, Senator Roberts, there were problems with that project because all it had from the former coalition government was a hollow promise without proper business cases or feasibility cases, let alone actual funding. But at the same time, we are funding a range of water infrastructure projects, including in regional Queensland like the Paradise Dam, an extra $600 million. Senator McGrath used to have a bit to say about that until we committed $600 million more. The Cairns water security project is getting more money. Darwin is getting more money for water supply, as are many other communities. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath! Senator WATT 245759 We are making responsible decisions about funding water infrastructure which actually can be delivered and have business cases attached to them, not just making promises based on colour-coded spreadsheets. Middle East 58 14:43 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Watt. In light of the recent protests concerning the conflict in Gaza and the disturbing effects felt in our communities, there is a growing concern about their impact on the social cohesion within Australian society. Would the minister agree that these events are, indeed, affecting our society, and in what ways? 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Van, you raise a very important issue in our country at moment. As Senator Wong, the Prime Minister and many others have already acknowledged, this is a deeply distressing time for many in Australia. That includes members of our Jewish community, who lost loved ones in the abhorrent attacks by Hamas on 7 October. It also includes members of our Palestinian community, who have lost loved ones in the conflict that has followed. Of course, it also includes many others across our community who feel very deeply about this issue. The thing that the government has been saying over and over again throughout the last few weeks is that as Australians, whoever we are, whatever part of the community we come from, we must maintain respect for each other and for each other's humanity. All Australians, no matter what their religion or what their racial background—whoever they are—have a right to be safe and feel safe, and no-one in this country should be fearful because of who they are or because of their faith. Everyone must be able to worship and to practice their faith without fear, intimidation or interference. There is no place for prejudice, no place for antisemitism and no place for Islamophobia in Australia. Australians are rightly distressed by the events that are unfolding in the Middle East, and I know many members of the government, many members of the opposition and probably you, Senator Van, have met with leaders of Australian Palestinian, Muslim and Jewish communities from all around the country in an attempt to try to bring people together. We need to remember that as political leaders we do have a responsibility to unite the country in difficult moments like the one that we're going through now, rather than inflame tensions by seeking political advantage, backing in one side and not another, or making selective comments. All that does is drive our community apart rather than bring people together, which is exactly what we should be doing right now. We are very concerned about the level of social cohesion, and we look forward to working with all senators who have an interest in this. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Given the potential implications of the protests on our social cohesion and community safety, could the minister outline what measures the Department of Home Affairs is implementing to monitor and address any instances of foreign interference that might be triggering or exacerbating this disruption to our national unity? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland At both ministerial and departmental level, the government is acting very strongly on these matters. Within the Department of Home Affairs, of course, one of the sub-agencies is ASIO, who have a primary role on this matter. ASIO is well aware of and well equipped to deal with the threat of foreign interference in our country. ASIO is monitoring for any foreign interference activity, particularly in light of recent events. The counter foreign interference taskforce, which is jointly led by ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, works to identify, investigate and disrupt foreign interference. That taskforce brings together the AFP, ASIO, AUSTRAC, the Australian Signals Directorate, the AGO and the ONI, all working on how we can counter foreign interference, which may be inflaming social tensions like that which you're describing. As you would understand, it wouldn't be appropriate to comment too much further on matters of national security, but in addition to this the government is receiving regular security briefings about the situation and taking appropriate action. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Does the minister agree that foreign interference, particularly through social media platforms, poses a significant threat to the fabric of Australian society and has the capacity to cause real and irrevocable damage to our communities? 14:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, I would agree that foreign interference through social media has the types of effects that you're talking about. That is one of the reasons why, at this very moment in time, the government is preparing legislation around misinformation. I can't remember whether you've commented on this, Senator Van, but I know there have been many speakers on that side of the chamber who have queried the need or the government's motivation in relation to that misinformation legislation, but it's exactly to deal with the types of issues you're talking about. We are seeing greater levels of foreign interference, including on social media, spreading factually baseless information—things that are just straight-out wrong—and, again, inflaming social tensions. We regard espionage and foreign interference as Australia's principal security concern. More Australians are being targeted for espionage and foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history. We need to work harder on this, and that's exactly why we're taking the types of actions I've been going through. Artificial Intelligence 59 14:49 Senator 256136 Australian Capital Territory DAVID POCOCK () (): My question is to the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher. I refer to the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday that the Australian government has decided 'to explore the safe and responsible use of generative artificial intelligence in the Public Service' in partnership with Microsoft through the Digital Transformation Agency. The Prime Minister said this will be done through a six-month trial of Microsoft 365 Copilot which will run from January to June 2024, with Microsoft providing training, onboarding and implementation assistance to participating agencies. How many Australian tech companies were given the opportunity to tender for this pilot? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pocock for the question. The copilot trial arrangement with Microsoft was initiated through existing arrangements with Microsoft. That procurement arrangement was in place with the DTA and Microsoft already, so it's building on that existing arrangement. We are very pleased with the opportunity to partner with this and to learn from it. It builds on the announcement that the Microsoft made around an investment in this country in their data centres and cloud based products, which is an important investment, and we're really pleased about this as well. This is a specific pilot that will run for six months until June 2024 through the DTA, making it the first government entity in the world to deploy a generative AI service. The trial aligns with the approach that the government has taken on the AI in Government Taskforce and the recommendation to the future of work committee that all procurement involving generative AI capabilities will consult with the task force prior to any market approach to ensure a coordinated whole-of-government approach. Participating agencies will be expected to evaluate their experience of the product in order for the AI task force to assess its opportunities and to report back to government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator David Pocock, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, are you aware that one of our local Canberra companies, Trellis Data, has the same capability and ability to do this? How does this square with the Labor government's election commitment that the Albanese government wants to ensure that more Australian businesses have the chance to benefit from contracts that deliver the goods and services the Commonwealth needs to support Australians? 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think there are going to be plenty of opportunities for businesses in this area. The DTA has released a request for information, RFI, through AusTender to gain an understanding of generative artificial intelligence services and support in the market. I think there's going to be no shortage of opportunities for businesses, including local businesses. As Senator Pocock would know, the Future Made in Australia Office has been leading the work for the government on the Buy Australian Plan, which is the commitment that he cites in his question. We have already done a number of things to support procurement for small businesses, including updating the Commonwealth procurement rules, which target that 20 per cent of procurements by value be sourced from SMEs, doubling the previous target of 10 per cent, and a range of other commitments through the procurement rules. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory It's very concerning that if you invest $5 billion as a multinational you then get a contract for AI when there are Australian companies that can do the exact same thing. The draft exposure legislation for the Defence trade controls amendment would prohibit Australian companies from selling their AI tech to a wide range of countries. Is this restriction of Australian AI exports related to the government's new partnerships with Microsoft? 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No, I don't believe so, but, if I need to come back on that, I will. This is a pilot program for a short period of time that was able to be agreed to under an existing arrangement with Microsoft. In that regard, there are opportunities for us to learn from this product. In addition, there are some opportunities around training, onboarding, implementation and assistance for participating agencies. We are looking to learn and partner on issues around generative AI. I have no doubt that this pilot on Microsoft 365 Copilot will be informative of further decisions the government takes in this regard. But I also repeat the fact that we are trying to get an understanding of what is out in the market as well. There will be a lot of opportunities in this area. Energy 60 14:54 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the acting Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. This month millions of Australian households and small businesses are receiving further instalments of energy rebates as part of the Albanese government's Energy Price Relief Plan. Can the minister please tell us how many Australians will be benefiting from these rebates? Also, how is the Energy Price Relief Plan helping Australians with the cost of living? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Grogan for her question and her interest not only in the issue of climate change and how we respond but in how we also deliver real cost-of-living relief to Australians who we know are doing it tough. Our No. 1 priority is addressing inflation and cost-of-living pressures, and that includes through our Energy Price Relief Plan. First, we acted immediately to cap coal and gas prices. Second, we're partnering with states and territories to provide targeted bill relief. This started in July and is helping five million households and one million small businesses— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath! Senator WONG 00AOU all of which you opposed. You wanted five million households and a million small businesses not to have energy price relief. In many jurisdictions, for those eligible for rebates, rises will be completely offset with direct bill rebates. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator McGrath! Senator WONG 00AOU Now, we do know energy prices have spiked as a consequence of international events, including Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and the global energy crisis which followed. That is why those on this side of the chamber and our government developed a considered plan to lessen the impacts on Australians. In fact, the ABS has said that electricity prices would have increased nearly 20 per cent without the government's intervention. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senators McGrath and Scarr! Senator WONG 00AOU That's what those opposite actually wanted. That is what would have occurred under them—20 per cent higher. You know who voted against every single dollar of relief to families and business? The coalition—the Liberal and National parties. If they had their way, Australians would be paying 20 per cent more. So remember that when they have the nerve to talk about cost of living. The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Senator Grogan: Senator McGrath, I called you many, many times. You were completely disorderly—and so were you, Senator Scarr. Senator Grogan, first supplementary? Senator Watt 245759 You're a disgrace to Queensland! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, that is unhelpful. 14:57 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia So, five million households and one million businesses—that's very impressive. Thanks very much to the acting Prime Minister for that great response. We also know that most social housing was built over 20 years ago, before the introduction of minimum energy efficiency standards. Can you tell us how the Albanese government is investing to lock in lower power bills for social housing residents? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Albanese government has an energy savings plan of $1.7 billion to help families and businesses across the country make upgrades and improvements to save on energy costs. That includes $300 million to support upgrades to social housing, which, as the senator rightly points out, is often older and lacks energy efficiency. Those who have the least capacity to deal with price rises also have the least capacity to enable energy efficiency, so these programs are to deal with that social challenge. It's estimated that upgrades for around 60,000 properties will save up to a third of their energy consumption, and work is already underway in some states, including Victoria. This week plans to upgrade energy efficiency in nearly half of the public housing stock here in the ACT were announced, and partnerships with remaining states and territories will be announced in the coming months. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:59 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia We continue to see some wild and impractical suggestions around energy policy, including around nuclear energy. Can the minister explain to the Senate why the government is not pursuing this particular policy and how the Albanese government is focused on responsible and realistic actions on lower power and energy bills? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Bilyk? Senator Bilyk HZB I'm having trouble hearing Senator Grogan's supplementary question. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Ruston and Senator Cash! Senator Bilyk was on her feet with a legitimate request for silence. I was also calling the chamber to order. 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll be very brief. We know that those opposite's only policy when it comes to energy is nuclear. We know that the only company to have a small modular nuclear power plant approved in the United States has cancelled its project. Guess why? It was because of rising costs—a 53 per cent cost blowout. Yet again, we know that those opposite are ideology over evidence. They're always negative, and they always want to pick a fight, but they're never able to come up with any answers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Subject to order, the time for question time has now expired. BUSINESS 61 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 61 15:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 In accordance with the order agreed to earlier today, I will now put the questions requiring that we conclude consideration of the bills listed in that resolution. 15:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Given that you have declared that the time for the consideration of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill has expired, pursuant to contingent notice of motion No. 7 standing in my name, I move: That so much of that standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation on time. President, this is about ensuring that this Senate chamber gets the opportunity to debate— Senator Cash I0M And scrutinise! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X and scrutinise the legislation that is before it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I'm very sorry. I'm going to sit you down and call for order on my left. Senator Birmingham, please continue. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Well, President, there's frustration here—and understandably so—because those opposite have sought to apply a guillotine across multiple pieces of legislation. This chamber, had I not intervened, was about to move onto considering the live animal exports amendment bill with not an iota of debate. Not a second of debate or further scrutiny is allowed further to the bill, to the committee stage nor to any of the amendments that are being proposed to the bill. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! When I call order, it applies to you. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X This Senate deserves the right to properly scrutinise legislation. Sometimes there may be proposals for bills to operate under time management. But that should be time management in which there is at least consideration, bill by bill, for some questions to be put, for some questions to be asked and for some amendments to be scrutinised. But, no, that's not the way this government wants to work. What this government did this morning was simply to come into the chamber knowing that the time allocated for the consideration of four bills would be just 14 minutes. Two of those had not even a second of commentary allowed in this chamber before. Cast your minds back to the lead-up to the last election. What were we promised by Mr Albanese? What were we promised by Senator Wong? What were we promised by the Labor Party? Senator McGrath 217241 Lower power bills—90 times! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Yes, Senator McGrath—lower power bills were one of those promises. You are right; there was a promise of $275 of cuts to power bills. That was one of the promises, and it was made more than 90 times, as Senator McGrath rightly points out. Of course, we were also promised greater transparency. We were promised greater accountability. We were promised a new way of doing business. That's what we were told would come from those opposite. Instead, we've got the hypocrisy of a Labor-Greens alliance who simply want to ram legislation through this place without enabling any consideration of it. What we don't know, what is not transparent—and the challenge I lay down to the Labor Party and the Greens to be honest about—is what else was discussed in putting this guillotine in place. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, which bit of 'order on my left' did you fail to comprehend? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I want to nominate Senator Birmingham for an Academy Award performance— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, resume your seat. Senator Birmingham, please continue. Senator H6X I acknowledge the point of order there. But of course, it's gymnastics for which Senator Whish-Wilson and the Greens deserve a gold medal—gymnastics for the backflipping that they are performing through the passage of this guillotine and the motions they've put in place. The Greens—the ultimate arbiters and judges of transparency and accountability, well jeez, with a triple-pike backflip we've seen across the chamber as they're happy to shut down debate and for there to be absolutely no consideration or detail or scrutiny applied. The Greens are doing that on bills that you would have thought they would want to stand strong. On bills that you would have thought they would want to apply scrutiny to the Labor Party. That is what drives the suspicion levels so high about the deal that's been done. The idea that the Australian Greens will just cosy up to the Labor Party and miss out on the chance to scrutinise legislation in relation to live animal exports raises suspicion levels right through the roof. It means there's got to be something that has been done as a deal between the Labor Party and the Greens. They could not have come to this sort of accommodation, where the Greens just wave away all of their rights to be outraged in relation to what the government is doing, urge the government to go further and argue for their passionate amendments. But instead, obviously, on long-lunch Friday, the Greens are eager to hit the vegan restaurant and to find the opportunity to get out of here as quickly as they can, take whatever prize has been offered in front of them by the Labor Party and trade away the chance for scrutiny—to trade away this bill, to trade away social security bills, to trade away their apparent convictions for transparency, and instead, to just be happy to get out of here, rather than do their jobs. Shame on them. 15:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would just like everybody to recall that the senator who just gave that impassioned speech— Senator McKenzie 207825 Rousing! Senator WONG 00AOU That rousing speech. I would remind everybody, despite his attack on the Greens—and there's nothing wrong with vegan and vegetarianism; I am not, but I think that was a bit unnecessary—I would make the point of the high and mighty principle that was on display, let's remember the coalition worked with the Greens political party to not vote on a bill for six days that they supported. Six days of sitting because they just wanted to create trouble. They were happy to work with the Greens political party then, weren't they? I expect the Greens wanted a lot of time, because they didn't want that bill. They were actually principled and consistent. You lot wanted the bill, but you just wanted to cause trouble. You just wanted to make sure that we didn't have time to debate it. If you'd really wanted to debate live exports, well, maybe you shouldn't have played around for six days on a bill you agreed with. If you really wanted to talk about live exports, you might have made sure you didn't play some political games on a bill you agreed with, that you eventually had to support. So, let's remember the hypocrisy of those opposite, who chewed up six days on a bill they agreed with and now come in and complain there's not enough time. It's a ridiculous proposition. I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put.

The Senate divided. [15:14]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 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. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 25 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:15 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:17]
(The President—Senator Lines)

25 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. 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. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 64 BILLS Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 64

Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023

Second Reading 64 15:19 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, in accordance with the order agreed to earlier today, I now put the questions required to conclude consideration of the bills listed in that resolution. I will first deal with the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:21]
(The President—Senator Lines)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 34 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

15:28 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 2206 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes the distress and economic pain of farmers caused by the Albanese Government's decision to phase-out the live sheep trade; and (b) calls on the Government to ensure that the live sheep trade is not prohibited".

The Senate divided. [15:28]
(The President—Senator Lines)

25 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 30 NOES 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. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

15:30 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 2088 be agreed to. Senator Thorpe's circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to: (a) create an independent body tasked specifically with the oversight of the welfare standards of native species to the full extent of the Commonwealth's power; and (b) ensure that the body: (i) recognises First Peoples leadership and strengthens First Peoples sovereign rights to manage, hunt and fish on their ancestral lands, seas and waters, (ii) recognises that the welfare and protection of native animals is linked to the protection of First Peoples cultural heritage, practice and identity, (iii) recognises that native animals are kin and hold a unique position and relationship proximate to country, culture and people in Australia, (iv) recognises that the protection of native animals is paramount in preserving the identity, biodiversity and ecology of every environment across the continent, (v) works with the States and Territories to develop enforceable national welfare standards; and (vi) supports First Peoples land and sea management as it relates to protecting First Peoples rights to hunting and fishing practices". Question negatived. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 15:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum related to this bill. 15:31 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the committee of the whole amendments, starting with the amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 1974, amendment (1) on sheet 2010 and amendment (1) on sheet 2011 be agreed to. Australian Greens ' circulated amendments— SHEET 1974 (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 3), omit "exports.", substitute "exports;". (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 3), at the end of subsection 3(1), add: (e) to recognise the sentience and intrinsic value of animals and the duty of care people have to ensure the physical and mental welfare of animals in their charge; (3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 18), after the definition of ASEL, insert: Additional Department Review functions has the meaning given by subsection 10AA(2). Additional Reporting functions has the meaning given by subsection 10AA(1). Live Animal Export Review functions has the meaning given by subsection 10(1). Oversight and Recognition functions has the meaning given by subsection 10AA(3). registered establishment has the same meaning as in the Export Control Act 2020. sentience, of an animal, means the animal's capacity to feel or experience negative and positive physical, mental and emotional states. (4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 5 to 14), omit the paragraph beginning "The functions of the Inspector-General are" in section 8, substitute: The Inspector-General has the following functions: (a) to undertake Live Animal Export Review functions; (b) to undertake Additional Reporting functions; (c) to undertake Additional Department Review functions; (d) to undertake Oversight and Recognition functions. (5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 7 (line 14), before "Functions", insert "Live Animal ExportReview". (6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 17), omit "Functions", substitute "Live Animal ExportReview functions". (7) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 18), omit "functions", substitute "functions (the Live Animal Export Review functions)". (8) Schedule 1, item 13, page 8 (after line 22), before section 10A, insert: 10AA Additional animal welfare functions of the Inspector-General Additional Reporting functions (1) The Inspector-General has the following functions (the AdditionalReporting functions): (a) making the office of the Inspector-General a Centre of Excellence for the collection and dissemination of information about animal welfare issues that impact the Commonwealth; (b) undertaking inquiries, commissioning research and preparing reports about the following issues: (i) protecting and promoting animal welfare in the export of live animals; (ii) the effectiveness of Commonwealth laws that apply to the export of live animals; (iii) sustainability and animal welfare issues that arise in respect of killing kangaroos for commercial purposes; (iv) the Commonwealth's animal welfare policy; (v) scientific and legal issues that arise in respect of the Commonwealth's animal welfare policy; (vi) potential animal welfare issues that arise in respect of the Commonwealth's animal welfare policy; (vii) the importation of animals and animal products into Australia; (viii) the management of animal species introduced into Australia; (ix) the possible harmonisation of animal welfare laws of the Commonwealth, States and Territories; (x) animal welfare issues that arise in respect of Model Codes of Practice for the welfare of animals; and (xi) considering academic and scientific research relevant to any of the issues outlined in subparagraphs (i) to (x). Additional Department Review functions (2) The Inspector-General has the following functions (the AdditionalDepartment Review functions): (a) considering the activities of the Department that relate to any of the following: (i) monitoring compliance with the Commonwealth's animal welfare laws; (ii) the enforcement of the Commonwealth's animal welfare laws; (iii) the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's animal welfare laws; (b) considering the effectiveness of the Department's implementation of the Commonwealth's animal welfare policies, including the development and implementation of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and its objectives; (c) undertaking inquiries and preparing reports about the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). Oversight and Recognition functions (3) The Inspector-General has the following functions (the Oversight and Recognition functions): (a) to have oversight of the Commonwealth's animal welfare laws, including oversight of: (i) animal welfare standards at registered establishments; (ii) animal welfare standards relating to the international trade of wildlife and wildlife products; (b) to promote the recognition of animal sentience within Commonwealth law and practice; (c) to undertake inquiries and prepare reports about the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). SHEET 2010 (1) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 12 (after line 8), at the end of the Part, add: 14A At the end of section 13 Add: (3) A person must not be appointed as the Inspector-General unless the Minister is satisfied that the person has experience and expertise in at least one of the following fields: (a) animal welfare science; (b) animal welfare law; (c) animal welfare policy. SHEET 2011 (1) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 12 (after line 8), at the end of the Part, add: 14B At the end of subsection 22(2) Add: ; or (f) the Inspector-General fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 22A. 14C At the end of Part 3 Add: 22A Disclosure of interests to the Minister The Inspector-General must give written notice to the Minister of all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the Inspector-General has or acquires and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the Inspector-General's functions.

The Senate divided. [15:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 34 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

15:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to ask if my support for the Australian Greens' amendment on sheet 2011 could be noted. Leave granted. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 by leave—At the request of Senator Lambie, I withdraw the amendment on sheet 2044. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that Jacqui Lambie Network amendment (1) on sheet 1995 be agreed to. Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendment— (1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act. (2) The review must start no later than 3 years after this section commences. (3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 12 months of the commencement of the review. (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. Question agreed to. Third Reading 68 15:35 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 68

Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022

Second Reading 68 15:35 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 69 15:36 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 69

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 69 15:36 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment on sheet 2077 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to: (a) increase the single maximum base payment of the following social security payments to $88 a day: (i) JobSeeker Payment, (ii) Parenting Payment, (iii) Age Pension, (iv) Carer Payment, (v) Disability Support Pension, (vi) Farm Household Allowance, (vii) ABSTUDY, (viii) Austudy, (ix) Youth Allowance, and (x) Crisis Payment; and (b) abolish all mutual obligation requirements".

The Senate divided. [15:38]
(The President—Senator Lines)

12 AYES 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. 33 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

15:39 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 15:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Third Reading 70 15:40 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023 70

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023

Second Reading 70 15:41 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 70 15:41 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments and requests for amendments to the bill. In accordance with the usual practice, the standard accompanying requests will be incorporated in the Hansard. I will first deal with the request for amendments on sheet 2197 circulated by the opposition. The opposition's circulated request for amendment s on sheet 2197 read as follows— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 10 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Pensioner work bonus increase from 1 January 2024 Social Security Act 1991 1 Subsection 1073 AA( 2) (examples 1 and 2) Repeal the examples, substitute: Example 1: David has $2,600 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. David's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil. David's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving David $2,000 of work bonus income for that period. Example 2: Amy has $1,300 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. Amy's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil. Amy's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Amy $700 of work bonus income for that period. 2 Subsection 1073 AA( 4) (example) Repeal the example, substitute: Example: Bill has $1,600 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. Bill's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil. Under subsection (2), Bill's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Bill $1,000 of work bonus income for that period. Assume Bill's unused concession balance is $800. Under subsection (4), Bill's work bonus income for that period is further reduced by $800 leaving Bill $200 of work bonus income for that period. Bill's unused concession balance is now nil. 3 Subsection 1073AA(4A) (example) Omit "$200", substitute "$500". 4 Paragraph 1073AA(4 C)( a) Omit "$300", substitute "$600". 5 Paragraph 1073AA(4 C)( b) (formula) Omit "$300", substitute "$600". 6 Subsection 1073 AB( 2) (example) Omit "$7,900", substitute "$8,200". 7 Application provision The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to an instalment period that starts on or after 1 January 2024. Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 8 Subsection 46 AA( 2) (examples 1 and 2) Repeal the examples, substitute: Example 1: David has $2,600 of work bonus income in a pension period. David's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil. David's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving David $2,000 of work bonus income for that period. Example 2: Amy has $1,300 of work bonus income in a pension period. Amy's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil. Amy's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Amy $700 of work bonus income for that period. 9 Subsection 46 AA( 4) (example) Repeal the example, substitute: Example: Bill has $1,600 of work bonus income in a pension period. Bill's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil. Under subsection (2), Bill's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Bill $1,000 of work bonus income for that period. Assume Bill's unused concession balance is $800. Under subsection (4), Bill's work bonus income for that period is further reduced by $800 leaving Bill $200 of work bonus income for that period. Bill's unused concession balance is now nil. 10 Subsection 46AA(4A) (example) Omit "$200", substitute "$500". 11 Subsection 46AA(4C) Omit "$300", substitute "$600". 12 Subsection 46 AC( 2) (example) Omit "$7,900", substitute "$8,200". 13 Subsection 46 AD( 3) (example) Omit "$200", substitute "$500". 14 Application provision The amendments of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a pension period that starts on or after 1 January 2024. 15 Annual reviews of income concession amount (1) The Social Services Minister must cause to be commenced, at least once in each calendar year beginning on or after 1 January 2024, a review of the suitability of: (a) the income concession amount in subsection 1073AA(4C) of the Social Security Act 1991, as amended by this Schedule; and (b) the income concession amount in subsection 46AA(4C) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, as amended by this Schedule. (2) The persons who conduct the review must give the Social Services Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review. (3) The Social Services Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. (4) In this item: Social Services Minister means the Minister administering the Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999. Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the income concession amount under the work bonus scheme. The income concession amount contributes to the amount that certain recipients of a social security pension, a service pension or income support supplement can earn before their payment begins to decrease. This means that increasing the income concession amount would result in recipients receiving a higher payment. The effect of the amendments would therefore increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriations in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Amendment (1) Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2). Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriations in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request. Amendment (1) This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that request for amendments on sheet 2197 be agreed to. Question negatived. 15:42 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I wish to record the opposition's support for the amendments on sheet 2197. 15:43 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I wish to record my support for the opposition's amendment on sheet 2197. 15:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I too wish to record my support for the opposition's amendments on sheet 2197. 15:43 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the requests for amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the request for amendments on sheet 2154 and the amendments on sheet 2155 be agreed to. The Greens circulated request for amendment s on sheet 215 4 read as follows— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 10 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Increases to maximum basic rate of various payments Part 1 — Age pension, carer payment and disability support pension Social Security Act 1991 1 Point 1064-B1 (table B) Repeal the table, substitute: 2 Point 1065-B1 (table B) Repeal the table, substitute: Part 2 — Disability support pension (under 21) Social Security Act 1991 3 Point 1066A-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: 4 Point 1066B-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Part 3 — Youth allowance Social Security Act 1991 5 Point 1067G-B2 (table BA) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 6 Point 1067G-B3 (table BB) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 7 Point 1067G-B4 (table BC) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: Part 4 — Austudy payment Social Security Act 1991 8 Subpoint 1067L-B2(1) (table BA) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 9 Point 1067L-B3 (table BB) Repeal the table, substitute: Part 5 — Jobseeker payment Social Security Act 1991 10 Point 1068-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Part 6 — Parenting payment (single) Social Security Act 1991 11 Point 1068A-B1 Omit "$21,470.80 per year ($825.80 per fortnight)", substitute "$32,032.00 per year ($1,232.00 per fortnight)". Part 7 — Parenting payment (partnered) Social Security Act 1991 12 Point 1068B-C2 (table C) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Part 8 — Service pension, income support supplement and veteran payment Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 13 Point SCH6-B1 (table B-1) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: 14 Point SCH6-B2 (table B-2) Repeal the table (note including the notes), substitute: Part 9 — Application of amendments 15 Application of amendments (1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the following: (a) the rate of a person's disability support pension, youth allowance, austudy payment, jobseeker payment, pension PP (single), benefit PP (partnered), age pension or carer payment for days occurring on or after the day this item commences; (b) the rate of a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 for days occurring on or after the day this item commences. (2) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in a table of the Social Security Act 1991 as substituted by an item of this Schedule; and (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. (3) The amendments of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 made by this Part apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment for days occurring on or after the day this item commences. (4) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in a table of Schedule 6 to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 as substituted by an item of this Schedule; and (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. (3) Page 10 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Increase to income free areas for certain payments Part 1 — Disability support pension (under 21) Social Security Act 1991 1 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 3) Omit "$2,184", substitute "$7,800". 2 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 4) Omit "$80", substitute "$300". 3 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800". 4 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$300". 5 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800". 6 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$300". 7 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 3) Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800". 8 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 4) Omit "$70", substitute "$300". Part 2 — Youth allowance (other) Social Security Act 1991 9 1067G-H29(b) Omit "$150", substitute "$300". Part 3 — Jobseeker payment Social Security Act 1991 10 Point 1068-G12 Omit "$150", substitute "$300". Part 4 — Parenting payment (single) Social Security Act 1991 11 Point 1068A-E14 (table item 1, column 2) Omit "$2,600", substitute "$7,800". 12 Point 1068A-E14 (table item 1, column 3) Omit "$100", substitute "$300". Part 5 — Parenting payment (partnered) Social Security Act 1991 13 Point 1068B-D27 Omit "$150", substitute "$300". Part 6 — Application of amendments 14 Application of amendments (1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the following: (a) the rate of a person's disability support pension, youth allowance, jobseeker payment, pension PP (single) or benefit PP (partnered) in respect of days occurring on or after the day this item commences; (b) whether a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 is payable in respect of days occurring on or after the day this item commences. (2) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in: (i) the table in point 1066A-F3 of the Social Security Act 1991, as amended by this Schedule; or (ii) the table in point 1068A-E14 of that Act, as amended by this Schedule; (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the various maximum basic rate amounts of age pension, carer payment, disability support pension, disability support pension (under 21), youth allowance, austudy payment, jobseeker payment, farm household allowance, parenting payment (single), parenting payment (partnered), service pension, income support supplement and veteran payment. As the effect of this amendment will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Amendment (3) Amendment (3) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the ordinary income free area for the disability support pension (under 21), youth allowance (other), jobseeker payment, parenting payment (single) and parenting payment (partnered) under the Social Security Act 1991. As the income free area is the amount of income a person can receive before their payment begins to decrease, increasing the income free area would result in some recipients receiving a higher rate of payment and would also increase the number of people for whom payments are payable. Increasing the income free area for youth allowance (other) and jobseeker payment under the Social Security Act 1991 will also increase the number of people for whom the farm household allowance is payable under the Farm Household Support Act 2014. This is because the income free area for youth allowance and jobseeker payment is used to work out whether the farm household allowance is payable. The effect of the amendment would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014. Amendment (1) Amendment (1) amends the commencement table of the bill and is consequential to either of the other amendments being agreed to. As amendments (2) and (3) are framed as requests, amendment (1) is also framed as a request. Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendments (2) and (3) If the effect of the respective amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriations in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests. Amendment (1) This amendment is consequential on the respective requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request. The Greens circulated request for amendments on sheet 2155 read as follows— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 10 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 5 — Mutual obligations and participation requirements Part 1 — Removing employment pathway plans Social Security Act 1991 1 Subsections 14 A( 1) and (2) Omit "and Division 3A of Part 3 of the Administration Act". 2 Subsection 14 A( 7) Repeal the subsection. 3 Subsection 23(1) (paragraphs (aa) and (a) of the definition of compliance penalty period ) Repeal the paragraphs. 4 Subsection 23(1) (definition of Employment Department ) Omit "Division 3AA of Part 3 of the Administration Act", substitute "the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012". 5 Subsection 23(1) (definition of Employment Minister ) Omit "Division 3AA of Part 3 of the Administration Act", substitute "the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012". 6 Subsection 23(1) (definitions of employment pathway plan , satisfies the employment pathway plan requirements and unsuitable ) Repeal the definitions. 7 Paragraphs 500(1)(c) and (ca) Repeal the paragraphs. 8 Subsections 500(2), (2A) and (2B) Repeal the subsections. 9 Subsection 540(2) Repeal the subsection (including the notes), substitute: (2) A person satisfies this subsection if the person: (a) has attained the minimum age for youth allowance (see section 543A); and (b) is not yet 18 years old; and (c) satisfies the criteria prescribed by the Minister. (2A) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe criteria for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c). Note: A person receiving youth allowance, and who receives employment services from a remote engagement program provider, may also qualify for a remote engagement program payment: see Part 2.13. 10 Subsection 540 AB( 1) Omit "and ending in accordance with subsection (3)". 11 Paragraph 540AB(1)(e) Repeal the paragraph. 12 Subsection 540 AB( 3) Repeal the subsection. 13 Paragraph 593(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph. 14 Subsection 593(1AC) Repeal the subsection. 15 Paragraph 593(1 D)( e) Omit "; and", substitute ".". 16 Paragraph 593(1 D)( f) Repeal the paragraph. 17 Subsection 593(1F) Repeal the subsection. 18 Paragraphs 729( 2)( bc ) and (bd) Repeal the paragraphs. 19 Subparagraphs 729(2)(d)( i ) to ( iic ) Repeal the subparagraphs. 20 Paragraph 729( 2)( da) Repeal the paragraph. 21 Subparagraphs 729(2)(dc)(iii) to (vii) Repeal the subparagraphs. 22 Paragraph 729(2)(g) Repeal the paragraph. 23 Subsections 729(2A) and (2B) Repeal the subsections. 24 At the end of Part 3 of Schedule 1A Add: 151 Persons not required to comply with employment pathway plan requirements (1) For the purposes of applying this Act and the Administration Act on and after the commencement day in relation to a person, the person is taken to: (a) satisfy the employment pathway plan requirements; and (b) satisfy the Employment Secretary that the person is willing to actively seek and to accept and undertake paid work in Australia, except particular paid work that is unsuitable to be done by the person. (2) For the purposes of this section, commencement day means the day this item commenced. 152 Persons under 18 receiving youth allowance If a person: (a) was qualified for youth allowance in accordance with subparagraph 540(1)(a)(iii) immediately before the commencement of this item; and (b) has attained the minimum age for youth allowance (see section 543A); and (c) is not yet 18 years old; then the person is taken to have satisfied the criteria prescribed by the Minister for the purposes of paragraph 540(2)(c) until youth allowance ceases to be payable to the person. Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 25 Divisions 2A, 2B, 2C, 3AA and 3A of Part 3 Repeal the Divisions. 26 Transitional rules (1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Part. (2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following: (a) create an offence or civil penalty; (b) provide powers of: (i) arrest or detention; or (ii) entry, search or seizure; (c) impose a tax; (d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act; (e) directly amend the text of this Act. Part 2 — Removing the program of support Social Security Act 1991 27 Paragraph 94( 2)( aa) Repeal the paragraph. 28 Subsections 94(3A), (3C), (3D) and (3E) Repeal the subsections. 29 After paragraph 94(5)(a) Insert: (ab) a person participates in voluntarily; and 30 Sections 94A to 94F Repeal the sections. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the request for amendments on sheet 2154 and the amendments on sheet 2155 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 35 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

15:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—President, could my support for the Australian Greens' amendments on sheet 2154 be noted? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Pocock. Third Reading 81 15:47 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. NOTICES 81 NOTICES Presentation 81