DOCUMENTS

2023-11-27 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 27 November 2023

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. NOTICES 1 NOTICES Presentation 1 10:01 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices this afternoon, to withdraw business of the Senate motion No. 1 for today proposing the disallowance of the Competition and Consumer Gas Market Code (Regulations) 2023. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 1 Order for the Production of Documents 1 10:02 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I have previously outlined to the Senate details of the government's claim for public interest immunity over documents related to the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework. I refer senators to these comments. 10:02 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. Once again, the government is failing to comply with an order of the Senate. The order of the Senate is simple. We are requesting the government provide to the public the financial sustainability framework signed off by the states and territories. Based upon this framework, the government in its last budget booked over $50 billion of cuts to the NDIS—$50 billion worth of cuts! Before anyone from Labor tries to argue that they aren't cuts, I would refer them to every statement that the Labor Party made about Tony Abbott's reckless and dangerous cuts to health, education and the ABC after the 2014 budget. The Abbott government framed those cuts as simply corrections to trajectory in expenditure in exactly the same way the government is attempting to do in relation to the financial sustainability framework, and the Labor Party rightly called them out for the $8 billion of cuts to health, housing and education that they were. Upon the very same basis, the Australian Greens have been very clear in calling these cuts out as the cuts they are. It is the Labor Party's continuing failure to publicly provide the details of the financial sustainability framework they agreed with their state chief ministers and premiers that is driving so much fear in the disability community. Disabled people believed that the cycle of mistrust, of misleading in relation to our NDIS was over with the removal of the Liberal government. But by their actions, they have recreated this environment of deepest fear in the community, particularly for neurodivergent people, particularly for autistic people. This feeling of fear and distrust is made so much deeper when the very minister in charge of the NDIS takes to the public airways to make claims that are rightly labelled by disability advocacy organisations as misleading and unhelpful. What were these misleading and unhelpful comments? In relation to autistic people and the relationship between the diagnosis of autism and access to the NDIS, the minister for the NDIS said, 'We want to move away from diagnosis writing into the scheme because then what happens is everyone gets the diagnosis. Again, just so I'm really clear, this is the full quote in context: … obviously there's every person is an individual and unique and it all depends on evidence. We just want to move away from diagnosis writing you into the scheme because what happens is everyone gets the diagnosis … Has this man ever in his life experienced what it is actually like to get an autism diagnosis in Australia—the amount of time it takes, the amount of money it costs and the stigma that you face? What a ridiculous, offensive thing to say! How awfully that perpetrates the idea that neurodivergent people, particularly autistic people, are in some way faking their condition. This comes on the back of months—in fact, years now—where both sides of politics have perpetrated a lie and supported the continual spreading of a lie, and the lie is simply this: there are more people in the community diagnosed autistic than there actually are autistic people in the community. There is no evidence to support this claim. There is no evidence of an overdiagnosis of autistic people in the Australian society, because there is no data speaking to the baseline existence of autistic people in our society pre the NDIS. There is evidence, pre the NDIS, that the state based support systems for diagnosis and assessment were patchwork, underfunded and often non-existent pre the NDIS. The NDIS has come in and people have finally been able to get access to the services and supports they need, and somebody is tracking the data. Therefore, we now see autistic people in the community. The Greens will continue to call for transparency and call out ablism. 10:07 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I, too, rise to take note of the minister's quite disgraceful response. Yet again, he spoke for ten seconds. That is nothing short of what we would colloquially call a two-fingered salute to the 631,000 Australians with serious and permanent disability on the NDIS. The contempt which this government is showing for not just Australian taxpayers, but also Australians with disability is quite frankly breathtaking. They are doing everything they can to hide the data on the forward projections of the NDIS. They have cut $74 billion over the next ten years, but have refused to release the data—the actuarial report—that would demonstrate to Australians with disability where that money is coming from. There are only two ways to cut that amount of funding from an insurance scheme: cutting participant numbers and cutting the average cost per participant. This is from a government who came in promising the world and promising things that they knew they could never, ever deliver to people with disability. It was cruel; it was wrong. They keep compounding that now with their actions, and we have again seen that utter contempt from Senator Farrell on behalf of Minister Shorten. Not only are they hiding this data, which we will end up finding—we will end up getting it one way or the other, because that is simply the right thing to do, in terms of financial transparency. We're not talking about $1 million. We're not even talking about $1 billion or $10 billion. We are talking about $74 billion that those opposite have ripped out of the NDIS forward projections without telling anybody how they are going to fund it. Not only have they lost the trust of the disability sector and the confidence of everybody in this chamber and this place with their duplicitous and, quite frankly, cruel behaviour; they've managed to lose the trust of their own Labor state governments! Let me read some of what their own ministers in state governments have said. The Labor Victorian government has accused the Albanese Labor government of being underhanded and keeping states in the dark on how to bring NDIS costs down. I quote the Victorian Labor disability minister, Lizzie Blandthorn: I'm very concerned, to be honest, about where we find ourselves with the Commonwealth in relation to the NDIS. … … … I feel very ill equipped to advise our first minister as to how she should approach those discussions when the Commonwealth are being underhanded. She goes on to say: There's no clarity as to what it means for foundational support, and the lack of definition means there's no clarity about how much any of that will cost. She goes on to say: My fear would be it would fall on the states— of course it will fall on the states, because it was always the states' responsibility to pay for the disability supports for the four million people who were never going to be eligible for the NDIS— and I'm also concerned that the Commonwealth Government is going to cut Victorians out of the NDIS. She said: I think it's fair to say that there's broad agreement across the Commonwealth that we need to ensure that the NDIS is a sustainable system that works for people with disabilities. … … … That said, how you get to an 8 per cent target— the target those opposite have set, without telling Australians how they're going to meet it, when, at the moment, in the last quarter, it was an annualised 15 per cent inflation target rate— without changing reasonable and necessary and reducing services… I don ' t think the Commonwealth has been forthcoming on that. She also claimed that there was no modelling available to show disability ministers what it would look like. No wonder those opposite are not complying with this Senate order to deliver the documents that show what's sitting behind the sustainability framework, because it does not yet exist. They're not only keeping people with disabilities and the Senate in the dark; they are also keeping the state ministers, who they somehow think are going to fund this document, in the dark. The ACT Labor-Greens government has also aired its grievances with the Albanese Labor government. The ACT Minister for Disability, Emma Davidson, has said that she would not agree to any plans to change the scheme, unless better services were in place. She said: Enough with the talk about costs, and how governments avoid paying for services people need. We should be talking about how to get better support for people. Shame on you all. 10:13 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Is there anything lower than what this government is prepared to do? Before the election all we heard was Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, out there saying what a great advocate he was for the disability community. That was complete and utter rubbish; just another broken promise, I guess, in the litany of broken promises that this government continues to deliver. What a cruel blow to some of the most vulnerable in our community. The thing that absolutely gets me is that those on this side of the chamber have always reached out and always tried to work within the NDIS as a bipartisan issue because it is too important for it not to be. Yet, for those opposite, that is nowhere near their DNA. They cannot do anything in a bipartisan way for the benefit of Australians. Everything is about playing politics, and politics at the most base level. It is absolutely beyond comprehension. We joke when we have transmission Tuesday running—I think we might be up to week 8—bringing back the inquiry into the transmission lines that are going to destroy communities in rural and regional Australia. The contempt with which these ministers come into the Senate, refusing to produce these documents that the Senate itself has ordered; the contempt with which they treat this chamber; and the contempt with which they treat people with a disability puts shame on all you. Shame on you. It is absolutely disgusting. The thing is, though, the people that are most concerned about sustainability, the people that are so anxious when they read these reports, are the parents of children with a disability who need to know that this scheme will be there for their child when they can no longer care for them. Those opposite are prepared to do nothing, work with no-one, not be upfront and not be honest with anyone. Whether it's with the opposition, the Greens or the Australian disability community, they refuse to be open and honest. Now we know they're refusing to be open and honest with their own Labor state governments. One would hope, having a Labor federal government and Labor state governments in every state on the mainland, that they could all get together with their ideological pot and stick into it what they think they can do to make this scheme sustainable. There have been suggestions made. I do think that there are too many kids going on the NDIS, but that's because the states vacated the playing field when it came to community health. Kids that needed a little bit of speech therapy or a little bit of OT, and some that needed behavioural supports and therapies or aids in the classroom, have been completely abandoned by the states. When we talk about the NDIS, I've heard Mr Shorten use the term 'the only lifeboat in the sea', and he's not wrong in many instances. But there's also been an attitudinal shift, because I can tell you, before the NDIS, parents put their hands in their own pockets. I know there's a cost-of-living crisis and everyone's finding it tough, but there are parental responsibilities sometimes that if your kid needs a swimming lesson, you pay for it. If your kid needs a couple of speech therapy sessions, it shouldn't always have to be at the expense of the taxpayer. That comes with being a parent, sometimes. This was promised by those opposite when they introduced the NDIS, 'Don't worry, you'll never have to pay for any of this ever again. There's community health at state level'—well, that's gone—'and, if it's not there, the NDIS will pick up the bill.' That's not what the NDIS is there for. There are things that can be done. We know that there are subjective tests and objective tests, and we know how assessments are being made. Some people may be 'putting on' the NDIS so that they can get access to it. We can have a look at some tests that will actually define whether or not a child should be on the NDIS, and we can track their development, if they're in an early childhood pathway, to move them off the scheme. If that is what the government's looking at doing, looking to introducing a vineland or mullens scale test, I'd be there to support them. I think this would be a great thing: take the data, see what the kids are doing and how they're developing over a period of time, see what's working and what's not working. I'd be absolutely happy and happy to help. I think it's a great idea. But we don't know if that's what you're doing, because, instead of coming in here and providing your thinking behind the financial sustainability—how you're going to cap at eight per cent or rip $74 billion out of the scheme—rather than being upfront and honest about where that's going to come from, you're drip-feeding into different newspapers which diagnoses you want to see removed. You're drip-feeding which groups will be impacted and how it's going to work. You're drip-feeding what the states are going to have to pick up, without talking to them, and creating more uncertainty and anxiety for a cohort of people that should be the most protected by this place—because that is what we are here to do. 10:18 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to take note of the minister's response, as I did on the Monday of the last sitting week and as I'll do on the Monday of the next sitting week if we're still in this position. It is important that people listening to this debate, in the gallery, understand what is happening here. We're having a debate in relation to one of the most significant social programs which is administered by the federal government for the benefit of Australians. Six hundred and thirty-one thousand Australians have benefits under the NDIS, and there will be hundreds of thousands more Australians who will come under the scheme in future years. That's what we're talking about. We, in the opposition and on the Greens crossbench, are seeking fundamental documents, core documents, to understand the sustainability of the program in the context of the government saying that they will cut $74 billion of funding from the NDIS over the next 10 years. We are trying to understand, discharging our obligation as a house of review, how the government can say on the one hand that they are going to cut $74 billion from this scheme over the next 10 years, and, on the other hand, we see the latest figures which tell us that's just not possible. Something has to give. As Senator Reynolds so eloquently put it, either the number of participants needs to decrease or the amount spent per participant needs to increase. Something needs to give. We are asking to see the actuarial data which forms the basis of the government's assertion that it can cut $74 billion from the NDIS over the next 10 years, but the government is refusing to give us that information. We represent the Australian people. By refusing to give it to us the government is refusing to give that information to the Australian people, and the Australian people deserve that information. They deserve the senators in this place having the opportunity to analyse that information and ask questions of the government in relation to it, because that is how the system is meant to work. In my capacity as the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I'm currently looking into a reference in relation to Australia's freedom of information laws. I've read the basis for those laws as they were first passed. Australia was a leading jurisdiction in the world on FOI. It was about transparency. It was about the Australian people having the right to know the basis upon which policy decisions are made. That was one of the bases of the FOI scheme. Here we are, some 40 years later, and the government is refusing to provide one of the most important documents in relation to one of the most important schemes that this government administers. It is simply not good enough. We will keep prosecuting this point. I congratulate Senator Steele-John on his prosecution of this point, and Senator Reynolds. We need to understand the actuarial basis on which this government asserts it can cut $74 billion out of the NDIS. All the evidences—I have figures given to me by my good friend Senator Reynolds—is to the contrary. Let me give an example. Total scheme expenses for the three months to 30 September 2023 were $10.1 billion, or 0.9 per cent higher than the estimate from June 2023. They were nearly one per cent higher over the course of a calendar quarter. The report showed plan inflation at 5.1 per cent in the September quarter or 15.1 per cent per annum. Where are these cuts coming from? Where is the maths? What is the actuarial basis? It doesn't any make sense at all. The Senate deserves that information so senators can analyse it and ask the questions that our constituents expect us to ask. That's the way the system is meant to work. What are you hiding? Provide the information, not just to this Senate, but to the Australian people. Question agreed to. BILLS 4 BILLS Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 4

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Second Reading 4 10:23 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. We have seen this morning the result of the Greens-Labor coalition in government coming to a town near you to buy back your water, to increase the cost of your groceries. We have seen this government and its ideological approach to governing. It does not have a practical approach at all. It is full of promises and full of rhetoric, but it is very short on practical action and very thorough on actions that hurt Australians' hip pockets. Before they were elected they promised to reduce power bills by $275. That hasn't happened. Your power bills have gone up. They promised your mortgages would go down. That hasn't happened. Your mortgages have gone up. They promised that real wages would increase and, while there have been wage rises, real wages have gone backwards, thanks to inflation. They promised to reduce the cost of living. Well, I'm sorry, but that has not happened. Now they are going to come and hit your hip pocket again because of this ideological deal. This deal with the Greens will strip further water from productive use in the Murray-Darling Basin on top of what has already been recovered and what is already set aside purely for the environment. It is not the case, as the Minister for the Environment and Water promised on the 7.30 program the other week, that water recovery under this deal will protect drinking water and town water because that goes against the objects of this act. You cannot use this water for drinking water or town water unless we are in an absolutely devastating crisis, which we hope we never get into again. You can't: this water is not for that. So anytime someone stands up and says. 'This water is going to help Adelaide,' or 'This water is going to protect your drinking water,' that is an out-and-out lie. It cannot be used for those purposes. But, taking this water out will drive up input costs for farmers because it will increase the price farmers pay for their water, it will drive up the cost of delivery of the water and it will drive up the cost of groceries. Just in the last fortnight, Murray-Darling Basin MPs and senators hosted a 'Taste of the Basin' event here in parliament. It was very gracious of the minister to come and to talk to the cotton growers, the fruit growers, the farmers who had come up and the producers. She went across to the SPC stand. SPC produce those beautiful tinned peaches and tinned tomatoes. She said she always likes to use Australian produce in her cooking and that she uses SPC tomatoes. Well, she's just made it harder for that to happen. At our Senate committee inquiry, we heard from the head of SPC that anything that drives up the costs for his farmers and increases the cost of production makes the job of SPC harder and makes it harder for them to compete against cheap Chinese imports. That's what we're seeing today, and to what end?. The government cannot definitively say what improved environmental objectives they are going to achieve with this water. We know, from the work done by the previous Labor government, between 2010 and 2012, that just holding this volume of water in the portfolio of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is not enough. To actually have improved environmental and ecological outcomes from this extra water, you need to address constraints, and there's nothing in this deal today that's going to address constraints. Are they proposing to continue to put pressure on the Barmah Choke, the Goulburn River Choke and other vulnerable environmental areas by trying to ram an ideological volume of water downstream just so they can say they ticked a box? That's what this is about; this is about ticking a box. And at what cost? We saw on the weekend the Minister for Climate Change and Energy refuse to answer questions put to him by David Speers on Insiders about what the cost of this rush to renewables will be to the Australian taxpayers. Minister Bowen refused to answer the question. We're seeing the same from Minister Plibersek. She said, 'You don't go to an auction with your cheque pre-signed to tell everyone what you're willing to pay for a house,' but we're not talking about what she's going to pay for the individual entitlements. We're talking about what she's going to pay in total for all of this. How much is this policy going to cost the Australian people? What we do know is that there's an extra $100 million for Aboriginal entitlements. They still don't know how they're actually going facilitate that—they still haven't spent the $40 million that the coalition government set aside for Aboriginal water entitlements because they can't work out how to do it. So instead of fixing the problem they're just going to throw more money at it and hope that, somehow, it works out. So we know that cost, but we don't know the cost of anything else. Even with the past government, we saw that every time Penny Wong went out with a tender she would announce what the total value of the tender process was. But the current minister is absolutely refusing to be clear about what it will cost. We were talking to the government as well—and, congratulations, Senator Hanson-Young, on reaching your deal. That's the glory of politics. I would have preferred her to support what I was offering to put on the table. What I was offering to put on the table was consistent with what the then Labor government wrote into the original Basin Plan. And don't just believe me: in a press release in October 2012, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated that there would be, 'An additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water to be obtained through projects to ensure there are no social and economic downside for communities.' That was Prime Minister Gillard. And in his second reading speech to the House on the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012, then Minister Burke stated, 'Importantly, the plan being proposed by the MDBA stipulates that an additional 450 gigalitres of water only be acquired through methods that deliver additional water for the environment without negative social and economic consequences.' That is what I was taking to the government: to maintain the original intent and to keep a social and economic test as a safeguard to our communities in this bill. But that, clearly, is not the objective of this minister. For all of her words about having regard to the social and economic impacts of water reform on basin communities, she was not committed enough to that to write protections into the bill. I think it's a sign this government acknowledges that what they're proposing will hurt basin communities. At the press conference we saw this morning, the minister refused to state how much will be from buybacks and how much would be through other mechanisms. One thing we know for sure is that the buyback will be more than 225 gigalitres, because if it weren't going to be that much there would be no requirement to lift the cap on buyback as is proposed by this bill. That was my other ask of the minister: if you are honest about your commitment that all options are on the table, that new projects can come forward and that buybacks are only one part of the package then keep the cap on buybacks, because there are still 225 gigalitres available under that cap. Keep the cap on buyback to force your department and your people to focus on alternative options. There would be nothing to prevent the government coming back in 18 months time to say, 'We're near the cap, let's have another crack.' But at least it would signal that they were going to put the hard work in first. Let me make it perfectly clear: while, yes, I've heard the economists say, 'Buyback is the cheapest form of water recovery,' it is the laziest form of water recovery. It is the simple option. It is pulling out a chequebook and waving it in the air over the heads of stressed farmers—like farmers who are struggling with the current wine industry situation. These are people who will get compensated; they will—farmers will get compensated. And mark my words: the government will pay a premium, because that's how they'll get the water. They're just not being clear on how much premium they will pay. But then the truckies who cart the grapes or the grain to the processing plants will lose their contracts. Then the rice millers and the dairy processors will lose their jobs. Then they'll leave town, so they'll take their kids out of school. Then you'll have teachers who are all of a sudden being told, 'Thanks, but you don't need to come back next year because we're closing one of our classrooms.' And it goes on. We know that both the Victorian and New South Wales governments have proposed alternatives. Both of them have requested that the government work out how to account for complementary measures such as incidental water savings, rules based changes and changing infrastructure to support fish movement. That work is hard. I admit, that work is hard. The department has continued to refuse to do the work, and the minister has not put the hard word on the department. So I will be moving a second reading amendment, and I have a series of amendments which I will be proposing through committee of the whole, because I haven't given up. I have to fight, for the sake of the communities in which I live, and the communities that produce 40 per cent of Australia's food and fibre, and the dairy processors, the rice millers, the winemakers and all of those industries in the Murray-Darling Basin. I have to fight until the last minute. I have to throw everything I can at this, to try and take some of the rough edges off this bill which I fear is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back for a lot of our small communities in the Murray-Darling Basin. We saw rallies last week in Deniliquin, Griffith and Leeton, all at the same time, because these people are saying, 'How can we be here again?' The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and thinking you'll get a different result. Now, this is not the first time we've removed water from productive uses, and we're not getting the environmental outcomes we want. There are other ways. We've seen it. Land and water management plans worked, because they're holistic—the Barmah-Millewa choke and so on— (Time expired) 10:38 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak to the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. Water is life. Millions of Australians rely on the Murray-Darling Basin for drinking water, for jobs, for recreation. Without water flowing through our rivers, ecosystems will die. Communities will suffer. The truth is: you can't eat cotton and you can't drink mud, and there are no jobs on a dead planet or a dead river. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was intended to address the impacts of overextraction on the health of the river system, yet it was a compromise from its inception. Since then, greed, vested interests and politics have trumped science, resulting in cuts to real water delivery and further decline of the whole health of the Murray-Darling Basin. As climate change has continued to get worse, the health of the river has been further compromised. The failure to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on time is a broken promise to our rivers, to South Australians and to ecosystems and communities basin-wide. And yet we have seen this coming for a long time. For over a decade Australians have watched the Murray-Darling Basin Plan fall apart with rorts, water theft and delays, leaving our precious rivers in a precarious position. I have smelt the stench of thousands of dead fish on the banks of the Darling/Barka. I have seen our Murray Mouth run dry. I have heard from countless people across the basin—from First Nations peoples, farmers, fishers and environmentalists—each with their own stories of watching the river die, begging politicians to stand up to corporate interests and overextraction, and to save our river for all of our interests, for the national interest, for the interests of our environment. Governments can no longer sit by and let our river die at the hands of greed, vested interests and political game-playing. We need water flowing across the whole Murray-Darling Basin, and we need it urgently. We need to be fighting for more water, not less. Without it, we will see more fish kills, blue-green algae, species decline, and the degradation of floodplain and wetland ecosystems. Basin communities will suffer. Jobs will be lost when climate change will see the river dry up. We cannot simply continue a plan that just kicks the can down the road without changing business as usual. That is why the Greens have today secured a critical lifeline for the Murray-Darling Basin. This is a significant win for the environment and river communities to stop our rivers running dry. The changes that the Greens have secured in negotiation with the government will guarantee delivery of real environmental water across the basin—north and south. It will close the loopholes in the plan to increase transparency and accountability, and deliver First Nations outcomes. In the plan's first inception, South Australia fought hard for the inclusion of the extra 450 gigalitres for the environment. Scientists said it was needed. And yet, since then, this 450 gigalitres has been viewed as optional. South Australians have been told by upstream states for a decade they would never get the water they were promised. More than a decade on and six months out from the current deadline, only 26 gigalitres of that 450 gigalitres has been recovered. Rivers die from the mouth up, and that's why it is critical and crucial for the Coorong, the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth to be healthy for the entire river system. Deadlines for recovery cannot be extended without a guarantee that the minister will treat the 450 gigalitres as a core part of this plan and ensure its delivery in full by the new deadline. That is what the Greens have fought hard for and that is what the minister has announced today that she will accept. Now, for the first time, the minister for the environment will have a legal, enforceable obligation to recover the 450 gigalitres and deliver real water for the environment in full and on time. For the first time, there will be consequences for ignoring this part of the plan. This guarantee, coupled with the lift of the cap on buybacks, will ensure real additional environmental water can be brought and returned to our rivers. The minister will be held accountable along the way, with the Greens securing a requirement to publish an implementation schedule for the delivery of the 450 gigalitres. This will detail the government's plan to recover the 450 gigalitres by the new deadline of 31 December, 2027. It will include interim targets and milestones. There will no longer be an excruciating wait, a question mark around when we will see water flowing for our environment, or whether we will see it at all. In securing this commitment, the Greens have ensured water will be brought back for our rivers as soon as possible. We will see water flowing in our rivers before the next election. Despite the plan being a compromise to begin with, over the course of the last decade we have seen cuts to real environmental water across the basin—for example, through the creation of the SDLAM offsets projects, which have resulted in 605 gigalitres less of real water recover. If we're extending the deadlines of the plan, we will need to be fighting for more water, not less, and that's why the Greens have secured a commitment that will ensure the scrapping of the failed water-saving projects and the ability to start recovering real environmental water in its place sooner rather than later. The Greens will amend this plan to ensure that failed SDLAM projects can be unilaterally scrapped by the Commonwealth government. The states will no longer be able to drag their feet on projects that we already know have failed. Real water will be bought back to make up this shortfall. Not only is this commitment critical to stopping further delays and excuses from the states; it puts real environmental water back on the table. In the northern basin, overextraction and barriers to connectivity have resulted in mass fish kills. We need to ensure better regulation of overextraction and, instead, get the water flowing to the places where it's needed most. The Greens have ensured that this plan will include real additional water for the Darling-Baaka, allowing rule changes that increase connectivity in the northern basin to be recovered towards the shortfall. Rule changes in state water-sharing plans have long been called for by scientists, academics, environmentalists and farmers. We need embargoes on extraction to ensure that, in our driest times, irrigators are prevented from taking water that is critical for the survival of the ecosystems and communities downstream, because in the worst times we all need to pull our weight and do our fair share of heavy lifting. These changes will be critical in promoting better connectivity across the northern basin and through Menindee Lakes, allowing benefits to flow through the Murray to the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. As well as guaranteeing real additional water for the environment, the Greens have called for measures to close loopholes and build back public confidence. That is why the Greens have today secured an independent basin-wide audit of the water in the basin to stop the rorts, inject integrity and restore trust after a decade of mismanagement from vested interests. It is critical that the Basin Plan is underpinned by up-to-date, scientifically robust models and methods. Otherwise, as we have seen, it will not deliver the environmental water the river needs and that has been promised. This independent audit will be conducted by the Inspector-General. The Inspector-General will be provided with the powers and resources to audit water accounts, determining if they match the reality of water in the basin—what is on paper and what is really there. Doing so will determine whether the processes and systems underlying the plan are fit for purpose and helping to achieve what was intended. This important audit, won by the Greens, will be critical in identifying areas for improvement ahead of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan review. Further, it will hopefully create a model that is reliable, is trusted and has integrity, to lead to more regular auditing processes and ensure that they are being performed at their best and can be regularly updated to inform adaptive management of the basin. The government will be required to publish a tracking mechanism to track recovery progress towards the plan. The public will be able to track water flows in real time and hold the government to account if they are not meeting the milestones to recover the real additional water that has been promised—integrity, transparency and truth. Further amendments will close loopholes that have allowed overextraction in New South Wales for years and will increase the powers of the Inspector-General to enforce compliance. This will allow the Inspector-General to do his job properly, forcing the basin states to comply with limits on extraction. First Nations people have been critical of the delivery of the Basin Plan, and rightly so. As my good friend, Major 'Moogy' Sumner, who grew up on the mouth of the Murray in his country, Ngarrindjeri, said: 'We've been looking after our river for thousands and thousands of years. When the waters are sick, everything is sick. The government needs to not just be listening but hearing and implementing the teachings from First Nations people on how we look after our rivers and our water systems.' He is right. The knowledge, rights and interests of First Nations people have long been left unacknowledged when it comes to the Basin Plan. To rectify this, the Greens have ensured that the undelivered money from the Aboriginal Water Entitlements Program to deliver cultural flows will be increased from $40 million to $100 million to reflect its lost value. To complement this measure, we have pushed for recognition of First Nations' interests to be enshrined in the objects of the Water Act for the very first time. This is a significant step towards recognising and enshrining the rights and interests of First Nations people to our nation's water resources. The Greens will also move amendments to require the Basin Plan review to consider First Nations' rights and interests and whether these are being adequately promoted through the Basin Plan and water resource planning. This will help create a clear road map to holistically considering and implementing changes to benefit First Nations peoples and their communities. These significant changes are throwing our basin and our river system a crucial lifeline. The Greens have secured amendments and improvements that will ensure the Basin Plan gets back on track and will be finished on time. But let's be clear, we still have a lot to go and a lot of work to do for the future. In particular, climate change and First Nations have been left out of this plan from the beginning, and it's time they were put in. We are facing what experts predict will be another summer of extreme heat. We cannot afford to delay the actions we know are urgently needed to protect our river. We need overextraction stopped and real water flowing before El Nino and the hottest summers, driven by climate change, leave the river high and dry again. I want to quote Gloria Jones, the wife of the late South Australian fisherman Henry. They have been a family of fishers in South Australia at the mouth of Murray for generations. Gloria Jones said about the current state of the Basin Plan: 'A healthy sustainable river should come first and then you'll have healthy, sustainable communities. If we don't reverse this trend, we'll have let our future generations down. We must take this opportunity to get things back on track and to deliver a much-needed lifeline for our environment and our river.' That's what the Greens have been working hard to do—a critical lifeline for the Murray-Darling Basin. Real water, real accountability and listening to First Nations people will create a better future for our river and a better future for all of us. This is in the national interest, and it's time that we got it done. 10:52 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I also rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. The Murray-Darling Basin is the largest and most complex river system in Australia. We should remember that when we listen to contributions of our colleague Senator Davey from across the chamber. It traverses much of the south-east of Australia—across New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and the ACT. It is more than a million square kilometres. It is home to 2.3 million Australians. It holds significant Indigenous cultural heritage, with members of more than 50 different First Nations peoples living in the basin. The river system is important for communities, industry and the environment. It contains 16 internationally recognised and protected wetlands and provides tourism services worth $11 billion each year. It supports one of Australia's most significant agricultural areas, with around 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural produce coming from the basin. That is enormously significant, yet what we've done over decades and decades is scrap over it, fight over it. I think where we've landed today shows us that a negotiated balance can be had. I believe that's where we've landed today with the very productive and thoughtful engagement of the Greens, particularly Senator Hanson-Young. It is important to note that we've been fighting over water since the British first colonised Australia. They brought with them theories and experience of vastly different countryside, vastly different water resources, different climate and different agriculture that were not in line with the realities of Australia. First Nations people had looked after the river system successfully for tens of thousands of years, living harmoniously with nature. That experience, and their inherent connection to the land, has been consistently disregarded. First Nations people deserve to have water rights and access declared and enabled clearly and transparently. Many years of overallocation of water, followed by the millennium drought and the ongoing increasing water needs of our society, have caused significant social and environmental damage. In response, the Water Act was passed in 2007. It established the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, and also laid the all-important foundations for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was introduced in 2012 by the then Labor government. The purpose of the plan was to end the wars, the fighting and the accusations. It was brave; it was very brave. The fighting over water in this country has been going on for an extraordinarily long time. In fact, we were fighting over it while they were drafting the Constitution. It is time to get over it; it is time to put down each of the individual needs and look at the total needs—to lay down everyone's own personal focus and to think of the whole river system as one and how we protect it so that it can be a river that survives for the next generations. The idea of the water basin resources being used and managed in a way that optimises social, economic and environmental outcomes is one of the objectives of the Water Act, because it is essential to find that balanced and sustainable way for everyone to get the most available water in a sustainable way. It's not to rip water out of the river and make the river sick and not to prioritise one particular source of agriculture or industry over another but to actually look at all of the needs of that river system. Let's be really honest here: neither human consumption nor agriculture have a future on a sick river. It's short-sighted to say that we have to prioritise farms and agriculture; if we don't keep the river healthy there won't be any farms and agriculture. The balance is what is crucial here. The plan has been off track for so many years. We had a decade of what could only be seen as mismanagement by the former Liberal-National government. Eighty per cent of the water that has been recovered to date was done so under a Labor government. We had a Senate inquiry into this bill and we heard many outlandish statements. But we also heard many balanced statements; we heard many people acknowledge that change needed to occur and acknowledge that the plan needed to be delivered to ensure everybody could get what they needed out of the river. Let's just step out the players here. The environmental groups, expectedly, support the bill because they care about the environment. They also think the bill doesn't go far enough to protect the environment, but, on this occasion, they're supportive of the bill. As much as they may want more, they know that the protections that are in this bill and the water for the environment will take us on that path. The academics, in the main, support the bill. They obviously have tweaks they'd like. Farmers are split on this. In the main, farmers are those who truly understand the river system and the importance of a healthy river system. And they understand it has to be a healthy river system over the long term to ensure that productive farming is not just for today but that it is for the future, so that generations after generations can continue to use the river. However, they are, understandably, concerned about the river right now, today, and about the available water for their vital crops. And I get that. I totally get that. Most of the farmers are very reasonable and most of the farmers I speak to are very reasonable about this. They get it. As to the processors, these guys are concerned that any change to volumes of produce will actually increase costs. I think Senator Davey's contribution somewhat overegged what they said to the committee and failed to recognise any of the other evidence that was given to the committee about the cost of food as it relates to water buybacks, whereas ABARES, based on data—real data—advised us that any change would be negligible. Irrigators, in the main, are not supportive, as their business model is commercial water sales. But there are irrigators that are supportive, as they can also see the long-term problem of a declining river. The Liberals, as usual, are just waiting to see what the best media hit might be, and, as a matter of principle, objecting to any Labor initiative. The Nationals have been spruiking their support for farmers, but, from what I can see, they are favouring the large commercial enterprises rather than the hardworking, generationally-connected family farmers, who eat, sleep and breathe the health of the river and the productivity of our vital agricultural lands, and, therefore, understand what we must do to ensure the long-term health of the river system. But our Nationals colleagues are following the age-old path of saying: 'The sky is falling in. The world's going to come to an end.' I think we've even heard from our colleagues in the National Party that the agricultural sector will end, due to voluntary water buybacks. I'm just going to file that with some of the other ridiculous statements we've heard in this place over the years, including that we'll end the weekend—however on earth people think we would do that. That was another empty claim. We've heard that we're going to wipe Whyalla off the map. Well, Whyalla's a place I visit quite regularly, and I can assure you that it's doing fine. So we might just put aside some of these outlandish, unhelpful statements, which are all about political punchlines and social media grabs. They actually don't give a razoo about what's actually happening on the river and the fact that there are so many interests that need to be balanced. But, without a healthy river, nobody gets anything. So I would like to give a shout out to the member for Sturt and Senator McLachlan. The member for Sturt has supported the 450 gigalitres of water and voluntary buybacks, and Senator McLachlan has agreed that we must prioritise the welfare of our natural world, and both of them have stated this publicly in the South Australian media. I thank them for this wise and balanced approach. In fact, we even had John Howard state: … we need to confront head on and in a comprehensive way, the over-allocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. He did show leadership on this. It's a shame that's all gone now. It's a shame that what we look at now is what I would say is the disgrace of those opposite, and of those in the Liberal and National parties more broadly, in not seeing how vitally important the health of this river is. It's vitally important to human consumption, vitally important to the environment, vitally important to our agricultural sector and vitally important to our tourism sector. But addressing the overallocation of the water is exactly what we are doing. The Labor government will go on, and we'll amend the Basin Plan to ensure that we have a healthy river. Now, we know that, in July 2023, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority advised the Minister for the Environment and Water that full implementation of the Basin Plan would not be possible by 30 June 2024. I think a lot of people knew that was coming and were concerned that that was the case, but that's as it was. Then, in August 2023, the Australian government, as well as the New South Wales, Queensland, South Australian and ACT governments, agreed to changes to implement the Basin Plan in full. That was because they all knew that the health of the river was critical to the future. This bill will provide more time and options to deliver the remaining water, including water infrastructure and voluntary buybacks; more accountability; and more money to deliver the remaining water and support communities. And there is also a suite of measures to bring integrity and transparency to the water market. Labor and the Greens have worked together to identify ways to strengthen the legislation, both through our work at the committee inquiry and also through negotiations with the minister. These amendments provide further rigour and protections, are well supported and will start us on the pathway of mending what has occurred in terms of Indigenous water access and water rights, which I think are a critical part of how we move forward. And it will provide better protections and more transparency. For the benefit of those opposite, who don't yet seem to be quite grasping it, what it also delivers is more certainty for farmers, more support for affected communities and more protection for our environment. If this bill does not pass this year, the current legislation requires states to withdraw their unfinished projects. This will result in the plan falling over and in further substantial costs. I wonder if that's exactly what those opposite are looking for? But I'm standing here urging everyone in this chamber to understand the importance of the health of the river—the importance of it being healthy and of us protecting it. That's for everyone: for agriculture, industry and communities. Please, get behind this. 11:07 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Members) Bill 2023 and to call out Labor for doing a deal with the devil, in the Greens, in agreeing to this plan. This plan is an utter disgrace. All I can say is that the Labor Party of old, and people like Ben Chifley, must be rolling in their graves. That's because former Labor parties would actually build dams. It's exactly what Ben Chifley did after World War II. He used to the sovereign powers act of the Constitution, under the national defence powers, and he actually undertook to build the Snowy Hydro plan. That plan took water from the Snowy River in southern New South Wales and Victoria, and diverted it westwards so it could go into the Murray and the Murrumbidgee—basically, to start a food bowl and southern Australia. That was along the Murray basin and the Murrumbidgee basin so that we could have irrigation and provide certainty to our farmers as to water supply. That's what you call nation-building vision. Yet here today, we have a Labor Party, in alliance with the Greens, that actually wants to destroy primary production in this country. I notice that we have a South Australian senator in the chamber. Who actually knows what the current depth of Lake Alexandrina in South Australia is? Does anyone know? I know that Senator Grogan there was telling us that we didn't know what we were talking about. I'll tell her what the average depth of Lake Alexandrina is: it's 0.85 metres, which is less than three feet deep. But this plan will take water out of the northern basin, including the Darling River, the Murray and the Murrumbidgee—it will take water away from the farmers—so that it can run all the way downstream to sit in the Lower Lakes in South Australia. Senator Grogan said, 'We have to store water and protect water for future generations.' Here's a fact: water evaporates! If you don't know about that, I think you should educate yourself. You should google 'BOM evaporation map' and you will get an evaporation map of Australia that looks like this. You will see that in the southern part of Australia, where the Lower Lakes are, evaporation occurs at two metres a year. Senator Pratt I0T I rise on a point of order. I draw to your attention Senator Rennick using a prop, which is against the standing orders. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 I did notice, and I did indicate visually for the senator to put it down, which he did. Thank you. Senator Rennick. Senator RENNICK 283596 Of course, what we get here, when we start providing facts and figures, is that evaporation in the Lower Lakes is at two metres a year. Lake Alexandrina's depth at the moment is 0.85 metres, so that will evaporate in less than six months. There's a way to solve all this, and that is to remove the lower barrages. The Lower Lakes, before settlement in Australia, were actually estuaries. They were more saltwater than freshwater. The only time they were more freshwater than saltwater was when there were big floods. So we need to be removing the barrages and letting the Lower Lakes return to their natural state. That is what we should be doing. That is the true way to protect the environment of the Lower Lakes. The idea that we would build massive dams and tunnels in southern New South Wales and push water from the east to the west, only to then let it run all the way down to Lake Alexandrina, where it'll just evaporate, is absolutely absurd. We should be maximising the use of that water flow as it goes through the system. If anything, we should be building more dams, not fewer. We should replicate the Snowy Hydro project about 1,500 kilometres north at a place above Grafton, where we've got the mighty Clarence, a beautiful river. It runs for 200 kilometres from north to south and then another hundred kilometres from south to north. Where it turns and runs out through Grafton and Yamba, you've got 300 kilometres of catchment of high rainfall. It's one of the few rivers in Australia on the eastern seaboard that runs north to south, parallel with the Great Dividing Range, so it maintains its height. All you've got to do is build a 10-kilometre tunnel to push that water into Copeton Dam and get it out into the Gwydir River. That is a much smarter idea. People will often talk about bringing water down from North Queensland into the southern basin. That won't work. There's way too much evaporation for that water to get there. If you really want to protect the environment and get more water into the Murray-Darling Basin, why wouldn't you divert some of the waters, like Ben Chifley and the Labor Party—the real, blue-collar Labor Party that no longer exists—did after World War II? It's become a green, Marxist ideology party of the elite, rather than looking after the workers. Why wouldn't you divert the water from the Clarence into the Gwydir? The beauty of the Gwydir is that it comes in above the Macquarie Marshes. That's another issue. Not many people realise that a lot of water sits in the Macquarie Marshes, so you could keep more water in the Macquarie Marshes from the upper part of the Macquarie River, which, interestingly enough, starts at Bathurst and runs all the way up to Bourke. But, no, that's not what the Labor Party and the Greens want to do. They don't want to build this country and build more dams. Labor is the same party that has an immigration rate of 500,000 people a year. If you want to increase the population by that much through high immigration, you have to feed these people. Not only are Labor trying to overpopulate Australia; they're going to starve us at the same time, because they're trying to shut down the very food bowls that feed us. The absurdity of this legislation is that it is completely ineffectual. Not only is it ineffectual through evaporation; it's going to destroy our very food bowl. We also see that $100 million will be provided to Aboriginal First Nations people. They're going to get an allotment of $100 million. There's been no explanation of how that money is going to be spent. I'd like to see how much of that ends up on bureaucrats and not out there in the regions where it could be useful. Then the water holders are going to have to do up a plan to demonstrate how they liaised with First Nations Aboriginal people as to how they use that water. That's more regulation. They're losing their water supply, and now they're going to have to deal with all this extra regulation. Why you would want to be a farmer anymore or to be in any small business in this country is beyond me. The amount of bureaucratic regulation—red tape, green tape, black tape, blue tape; you name it—is choking entrepreneurship in this country. It is choking innovation. The other thing that really grinds my gears when it comes to water rights in this country is the fact that, three years ago, our own tax office ruled that the sale of water rights by foreigners is not subject to capital gains. How does that work? We should be bringing in legislation in here today that says that sale of water rights by foreigners is subject to capital gains. Even better than that, we should just stop foreigners owning water rights altogether. Those water rights belong to the Australian people and should be used, first and foremost, by our farmers and our irrigators, and what's left, we can divvy it out with the environment. But, if you want to solve the Murray-Darling problem and have a growing population, we need to be putting water in the system, not taking it out. There is another reason why we should have dams. I noticed Senator Hanson-Young said: 'The river's dying. I saw some dead fish.' You've got to love this stuff. The lack of expertise and knowledge in this Senate about how our river system works is absolutely appalling. Those dead fish are a result of a blackwater event. These things happen all the time. We live in a country where we have droughts followed by floods followed by droughts. What happens when we have floods that follow a drought is that all the debris flows down the river and chokes up the river. That kills the fish. That's been going on for thousands of years. It's nothing to do with climate change or anything like that. I'll read what the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has to say about managing blackwater events: Flooding that leads to blackwater events is a natural feature of Australian river systems, limiting the capacity to prevent and manage negative impacts. Frequency or severity of such events can be reduced by managing water systems … So how about we have dams that store water in floods and let the water flow down the river in dry periods? We couldn't do that, could we? We couldn't do what the former Labor prime ministers used to do, and that's because the Labor Party of today isn't the Labor Party of yesteryear, that's for sure. The document goes on to say that we can 'ensure adequate flows to reoxygenate the water'. Wow! Listen to this: 'During blackwater events, downstream systems also benefit from organic inputs once the water has reoxygenated.' There's a lesson there for our senators who seem to think that a dead fish means the river is dying. That's a natural cycle. It's a natural part of the cycle. If you see a dead branch in the forest, it doesn't mean that the forest is dying. It just means that one branch has fallen off a tree. To somehow claim that because you're seeing dead fish that's the end of it and the Murray-Darling is all over is absolutely absurd, but that's what we are dealing with in this chamber. We are dealing with intellectual pygmies who don't have a clue about managing water. They have no idea about managing water and no idea about evaporation rates. In the middle of Australia, the evaporation rate is four metres. Around the Menindee Lakes, it's three metres a year. That's half the depth of the Menindee Lakes. That's another thing we hear people say: 'Oh, the Menindee Lakes have run dry.' They're ephemeral lakes. They run dry in droughts. That's what happens. But every time we have a drought, we hear, 'The Menindee Lakes are drying up.' We must not take the 450 gigalitres from the farmers who feed us. We don't have a manufacturing industry in this country, thanks to the Hawke-Keating government of the eighties that introduced the Button plan that destroyed manufacturing, and it looks like the Albanese government is now going to destroy primary production by, effectively, destroying our ability to control water. The foundation of civilisation was when man learned to control water by getting stable water flows and by building dams in the Tigris, the Euphrates and the Indus Valley. This is where our ancient civilisation began. This was when the neolithic revolution began, and it was because they were able to store and manage water. It was by damming water, by being able to put water aside for when we have droughts in Australia—which we do because our climate is very much like the Middle East was back at the time of the Neolithic Revolution. We need to be able to do this. We are a marginal country. Once you go west of the Great Dividing Range it is marginal country—it is marginal rainfall. We need to increase the certainty of water supply, and the way we do that is by building dams and managing water, and letting the Lower Lakes—and I will call out my colleague Senator McLachlan because he needs an education. The average depth of the Lower Lakes is—I will repeat it—0.85 metres, with two metres of evaporation a year. The best way to manage those lakes is to let the seawater back in and remove those barrages. It is completely absurd: we have all of this infrastructure in the Snowy Hydro scheme that diverts water, which runs all the way down to South Australia where it sits in in a great big lake and evaporates away in six months. That is completely absurd. We need to keep that water for our farmers. It is our farmers who feed us. Without being able to control your water, without irrigation, this country will starve, as will our primary production. I say, shame on Labor and the Greens to be wasting money on buying back water when that money should be building dams on the eastern seaboard and pushing it westwards back into the Murray-Darling. That will put water into the system. That will add water to the system. It can be a win-win: you can have more water for environmental flows and you can have more water for irrigation. How do you lose there? Under this scheme, we're going to cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions—if not billions—of dollars, we're going to lose our food source and we're going to let this valuable water run down to South Australia and sit in Lake Alexandria only to evaporate in six months. As a Queenslander, I resent the fact for every 11 litres of water that crosses the border from the Murray-Condamine Basin, only one litre makes it through to South Australia. The other 10 litres evaporate on the way down because it's so hot and dry through there. It's absolute madness. I suggest the people on the other side of the chamber do a geography lesson, learn a little bit about elevations and evaporation and the way our rivers flow, and look at building and protecting our Murray-Darling system, not destroying it. 11:22 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I am sure we all enjoyed being lectured on scientific expertise and intellectual rigour by you, Senator Rennick, so thanks for that. I also rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. While I won't pretend to be an expert or make up some science on the run, I can say, sure as sure, that there is nothing more important to my home state of South Australia than the future of our river. This is an existential question for my state. My state's future depends on the river's future. The health of my state and the people within it depends on the health of our river, and this bill will get us back on track to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan as designed and in line with the science. It will see the promised 450 gigalitres restored to the basin—those 450 gigalitres that are essential to the health of our river—to ensure our river can withstand the next dry spell. This gives us more time, options, funding and, critically, more accountability—all things we need because we've had a decade of sabotage by the Liberals and contempt by the Nationals, and this is the only way we will get there. Everything Senator Rennick just said gives everyone the indication they need on what those opposite think of the river and the science, and their commitment to doing something about the unfolding challenging and the risks not just to the basin as a whole but also to my state of South Australia. Those are existential questions for my state. We need our river to be healthy in order to be healthy. But for almost a decade, the other side—the Liberals and the Nationals—have failed on this front. The Nationals have been running the show. There are so many South Australians deeply disappointed that there have been so few Liberal South Australian voices on this. I acknowledge those who have stood up for our river in recent years, but they have been far too few and far too soft. For almost a decade the former coalition government ignored their own reports that the plan was in trouble. They've ignored the comments of one of their own. Even John Howard said during the millennium drought that the old way of managing the basin had reached its use-by date. Even John Howard knew we needed to 'confront head on'—and these are his words—'and in a comprehensive way, the overallocation of water in the Murray-Darling'. Instead, the other side have gone in the opposite direction. They undermined their own projects so that they couldn't be delivered. They stalled and stalled; they sabotaged and sabotaged. In South Australia their own minister capitulated to the other states. My state of South Australia cannot afford this any longer. Delivering the plan requires strong and decisive action. That is what our government promised; that is what our government will deliver. As I have said in this contribution and in many others: if we don't do this, if we don't take the action needed to protect the Murray-Darling Basin and the plan which upholds it, the lifeblood of my state is at risk. That's what the river is to South Australia. We must ensure the water resources of our most productive region, the Murray-Darling Basin, are better managed to withstand longer, deeper droughts; more frequent floods and bushfires; and everything else that we know climate change will throw our way. Our basin is treasured for its productivity and its beauty. We know irrigated agriculture in the basin produces about 15 per cent of Australia's food and fibre. Tourism is worth $11 billion. It's home to 2.3 million Australians, and more than three million people drink its water each and every day. Within it we have 16 internationally significant wetlands, 35 endangered species and 120 different species of waterbird. This is why it is so imperative that this bill passes. We need to implement the Basin Plan in full. That includes recovering the 450 gigalitres of additional environmental water the basin needs. This is the only way we're going to get there. The bill also implements recommendations from the Water market reform: final roadmap report, a report, along with an ACCC report, which was commissioned by the previous government but not acted upon. This will ensure that transparency, integrity and confidence are restored in our water markets. The bill before us removes restrictions on the recovery of water and the extension of time lines, including for water saving and efficiency projects. It also represents a significant investment in a nature-positive Australia—those precious wetlands, endangered species and waterbirds, all of which deserve our protection. It gives us more time, more options, more funding and, critically, more accountability. It's a plan that will get us back on track. It could not be more important to my home state of South Australia that we get back on track. We know delivering the plan requires strong, decisive action. We need to deliver the plan in full because my state cannot afford to wait any longer. We cannot continue with the stalling and the capitulation anymore. We need to take action. Our government will take action. That requires listening to the science, not making it up on the run. That's what we will do. This is an existential question for my state of South Australia. We will get this back on track. (Quorum formed) 11:30 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I stand to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. As somebody who has lived on the Murray-Darling for just about all of my life, I know that, along the entire corridor of the Murray-Darling Basin, everyone wants a healthy river system. That includes the farmers who live in the communities who rely on the river and who grow our food—the food that we all enjoy at our restaurant or dinner tables every night in cities and towns around the whole of the country. Think of the export earnings that we make from the abundance of product that's grown in the Murray-Darling Basin, much of which is exported to places around the world. Think of the amazing tourism opportunities that our wonderful river provides for so many of our communities, for the enjoyment not only of our international visitors but of Australians the length and breadth of this country, who come to waterski on our river and to canoe and kayak up our creeks and backwaters. Tourism is a huge part of a healthy river system. The river is also important in our cities, when people turn on the tap and expect the water to flow. This all comes about because we have the Murray-Darling Basin, and every single one of those people should want a healthy river system. I categorically state once again that I support the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. If it takes some more time—which this bill seeks to achieve—then that's okay too. It's more important that we get the outcome without doing the damage. No state could be more impacted or aware of the impacts of the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin than my home state of South Australia. I put on the record that, for 50 years, the South Australian consecutive governments of all persuasions have always been responsible with the way we have managed water policy within our state. We have never breached our caps. We were very early in adopting water-saving measures by investing in water efficiency measures before many other places around the basin even considered them. Water was being delivered in my home community of the Riverland under pressure pipes before anywhere else in the country. But I cannot support this bill unamended, despite the fact that I absolutely am committed to the delivery of the plan in full. The reason I cannot support this bill unamended is because a very, very important component was built into this act that meant there needed to be no socioeconomic detriment delivered to river communities in the achievement of the outcomes. That was put in there for a very good reason, because the destruction of our river communities was something that could not be tolerated by any state or territory in the basin or by the Commonwealth when this plan was first put together. I can't support this bill unless we maintain the cap on buybacks and maintain that buybacks are only used as a mechanism of last resort. Buybacks are plain lazy policy. The minister says that the buybacks will only be voluntary. I can tell you: if you are a farmer who is under pressure from your bank, and they're breathing down your neck—because we know that many of the commodities that are currently being grown along the Murray-Darling Basin corridors are suffering the impacts of low commodity prices—you are not a willing seller. You're a seller who is being forced to sell because your bank is putting pressure on you. There are plenty of markets out there where you can buy and sell water at the moment. Do not be convinced when the minister says that people are voluntarily wanting to sell all of their water into the buyback schemes that she's putting forward. That is simply not true. A willing seller is not one with a bank breathing down their neck. I also would argue that we need to audit the water that is already available for environmental use through the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and what outcomes are currently being achieved, and to make sure we do not take any more water out of productive use unless we can actually demonstrate how that water is going to be used and how it's going to be moved through the system. What is being done in relation to constraints and the actual moving of water throughout the system? What about investing more time and effort into more innovative ways to make sure that we are securing the water that the environment needs, when it needs it, but not necessarily taking it out of productive use when it is not needed? We know that not every year will the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder need the full amount of the water that it is seeking to achieve through this plan, so why don't we leave that water in the hands of our irrigators? Let the irrigators continue to own the entitlements to use that water to grow the food and fibre that Australia so heavily relies on, which has such a huge impact and delivers so much to the economic benefit of this country. Why don't we leave the water in the hands of those who are going to productively use it, until such time as it's needed for the environment? There are so many innovative proposals currently out there that this government could be looking at. But, instead, it's gone for the lazy, easy option of saying that buybacks will be the easiest way to go. If that's not the case—if the minister says buybacks aren't going to be the be-all and end-all in terms of the delivery of the targets in the plan—then let her leave the caps in place. More importantly, for communities like the one that I live in, can we please make sure that the no-socioeconomic-detriment test remains in place? I don't want to see my community destroyed as a result of an ideological policy position of this government that has not been properly thought through. It's also clear that the government really doesn't care about what these communities think. It doesn't care about the impact on these communities of the changes being proposed by this bill we're debating here today. If they did care, they would've gone out to those communities and spoken to them when this bill was being debated and when it went to committee. But, no, we didn't go out to the communities; we did not go outside of Canberra. We had a hearing here, in Canberra. The government refused to move outside of Canberra, outside of their Canberra bubble, which is serving them so well at the moment, isn't it? They refused to do that. They refused to go out and face the people in these communities who will be most immediately impacted by this bill. Make no mistake: it will not be just the people in rural and regional communities that will be impacted by this particular bill. Right now, you could not have picked a worse time to bring a bill into this place. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, this government intends to bring a bill in here that is likely to have an impact on the cost of food in this country. How out of touch can you possibly be with the people of Australia, to bring a bill in here with no regard whatsoever for the likelihood—almost the inevitability—that it will push up the price of food, particularly of fruit and vegetables, which are things that the Murray-Darling Basin grows in quite a level of abundance? It's a pretty simple economic equation: less water means less production, and less production means higher prices. But it also means substitute products. So we will see the products that were previously being grown in a really efficient Murray-Darling Basin system, be replaced and substituted by products that are grown overseas. If we want to get the same amount of fresh fruit and vegetables onto our tables, if we're not growing them here, in Australia, we're going to have to bring them in from overseas. Many of the countries that we would seek to import our food from do not have the kinds of environmental standards that we have here in Australia. So we're going to offshore our production to places without the same level of environmental standards while, at the same time, pushing up the prices of Australia's clean, green, home-grown produce. I would say to the government, 'Have you actually thought about the impact of this on families when they turn up at the supermarket?' They're struggling currently to pay for their groceries because they're worried about paying their mortgage or their energy bill, and they're worried about what they pay when they go to the bowser. They're also having huge pressures put on them because we've seen an escalation in the price of food. But those opposite want to put policy into this place which makes that price go up even further. They have also forgotten to actually speak to the people of Australia. We know that the sentiment has moved in relation to water buybacks, as was evidenced by an article in the Daily Telegraph and syndicated this morning. We know that 56 per cent of survey respondents actually thought investing in water efficiencies were a better idea than buybacks. Only 13 per cent of those people who were surveyed thought that buybacks were necessary. I would agree with the 87 per cent of people who don't think buybacks are necessary. There are other ways that we are able to achieve the water and to make sure we have an environment that is sustainable going into the future for the Murray-Darling Basin but, at the same time, not destroying the river communities that rely on it—river communities like the one I live in, in the Riverland in South Australia. The other thing this bill does—and I'm not sure this bill does a lot that's particularly good, apart from allowing greater time frames—is that it ignores 12 years of bipartisanship. And it ignores the states and territories and the fact that, when this particular plan was put forward, it was a landmark decision. All the states and territories, and the Commonwealth, came together; 14 chambers of parliament voted unanimously for this plan, and that all gets thrown out by today. Every single council in the basin has said that they don't support this bill unless it is amended. It is really disappointing that we have to be standing here today, basically assuring mutually assured destruction to the delivery of a sustainable river system going forward by the actions of this government. A sustainable system is not a system that destroys the river communities that rely on it and the food they produce, which Australians enjoy eating every night. But this is just another example of the Labor Party's absolutely contemptuous ignoring of rural and regional Australia. This is not the only thing this government is doing in terms of treating rural and regional Australia, as if we're somehow the poor cousins that can be sacrificed on the altar of their city seats. We saw it with the cuts to infrastructure—there was no regard for the fact that we have to get the produce out which makes our balance-of-payments figures so good—the thing, our resources sector, that is actually delivering the budget surplus that this government is claiming. But we won't worry about the infrastructure to support getting that to market! In my own portfolio of health and aged care, I can assure them that Australians' health outcomes and support in their older years is much worse the further they move away from metropolitan areas. It's the continued policy changes of this government that continue to make sure that Australians who live in rural, regional and remote Australia continue to have worse outcomes than those people that live in the city. It just goes to show the level of contempt that this government has for rural and regional Australia. I'd say to anybody who is in this chamber and who has to vote: 'Have a really serious think about whether you want to be party to voting for a piece of legislation that's, firstly, going to have a much more significant impact on rural and regional Australia than anywhere else. Do you want to vote for a piece of legislation that's going to mean your grocery prices are going to be higher than they were last week? Do you want to vote for a piece of legislation that is going to mean that we will have to import our food from overseas, coming from countries that are less environmentally friendly and don't have the same clean, green standards that we do in Australia?' I think every Australian needs to understand what this particular bill does. It does nothing to deliver the environmental outcomes, because an environmental outcome can only be sustainable if the river communities that sit along our river system are there. That's because it is our farmers, irrigators and river communities that are the stewards of our river system. You don't see too many people from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Canberra and Perth out there looking after our river system. You see the people in the communities who actually live on the river caring for our system. So I would say: don't take the lazy option today of allowing buybacks to be one of the core sources of securing water going forward. Don't do that. Be smarter. Be cleverer. Be innovative. Let's be proud about the way we can achieve this. As I said, we all want a sustainable and healthy river system, none more so than me. I live on the river. I know what it means to have a sustainable river system but I don't want a river system that means that my community in the Riverland in South Australia would be entirely wiped out if we sought to buy back the remaining water that is required for the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. In final, to quote a former New South Wales Labor Minister, we do need a healthy working river. However, at this rate, we may end up with a healthy river but it won't be working anymore. 11:45 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia For South Australians, the Murray-Darling River is life. It is our water supply, and without the river so many South Australian citizens would be without a water supply. For three million Australians, drinking water comes from our Murray-Darling system. It is our food bowl. The river is also a centre of community life, up and down the valley. It feeds our towns. It sustains our communities. It is a source of culture for so many of us, especially for First Nations Australians. It is a place of recreation for so many citizens. And it is a place where so many plants and animals are threatened and where a healthy system is critical to the survival of plant and animal species. I was born on the river in Berri in South Australia. My grandfather and grandmother were 'blockies'. My grandfather returned from World War I, like so many Australians, and took a block to grow food and make a future for the family. My mother grew up in Barmera, and we all knew holidays every year on the river Murray, a place of recreation, of community making. As kids, we loved the river. Like so many South Australians, we see it as a place of community, family, food, water and recreation. The communities from the river system—Mannum, Berri, Barmera, Waikerie, Loxton, Renmark, Swan Reach—are all dependent on a healthy river. The City of Adelaide is dependent for its water supply on a healthy river. We all need a system that works, an ecology that functions. For over 15 years, vested interests have been permitted to dilute and derail the Basin Plan, with some particular corporate interest prioritised over the health of the river and the communities that depend on it. The river is now in a bad way—rising salinity, mass fish deaths, algal blooms and a deteriorating water quality. There are no jobs on a dead river and there are no communities on a dead river. The existing plan has failed. The 2019 targets have not been reached and there's been no credible pathway to restore the pitiful level of environmental flows promised under the compromised and corrupted Basin Plan. Over the course of a decade, less than 13 of the 450 gigalitres promised for the southern basin have been recovered. That is just over a gigalitre a year. Richard Beasley, the commissioner for the River Murray in South Australia, described the existing plan as 'an opportunity that has been squandered'. However, he still held some optimism for the future, and that is why the plan that comes to us today, amended by the Greens, is a vital and important step forward. With a very hot summer bearing down upon us, it's urgent we change course now to overhaul the plan and start putting water back into the system. I recently met with the Murray-Darling Conservation Alliance. It's a group of national conservation groups across the basin area, and they highlighted four keys areas they see as critical to the repair of our Murray-Darling Basin: restore natural flows to ensure environmental flows that are key to survival and recovery of our wetlands; invest in regional communities to build security and prosperity through the floods and the droughts; buy back water from willing sellers and secure guaranteed flows to rejuvenate the river and its larger ecology; and deliver funding for First Nations Australians. The Murray-Darling Basin is First Nations country. More than 40 First Nations communities have lived and live in the basin and they call for the right to protect, to manage and to own water resources in order to heal country and to heal people. After decades of water reform, the time for token gestures has long passed. Our country is dependent on a healthy river system across the Murray-Darling Basin. For decades we've been let down by poor deals and very bad governance of our river. Most recently we experienced an appalling decade of neglect by the Liberals and the National parties—a basin plan that was and is completely off track. Three million Australians depend on the river system for water and yet there is a failed plan. We need more water in the river system and we need a better plan that is properly governed. The Greens have worked hard with the government to take action and to address this crisis. Today's announcement is a huge win for South Australians and a huge win for Australians. I acknowledge the work of my colleagues in working with the government to bring this plan to bear, especially my colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who has worked so hard for decades around the river to push for a better plan—a plan that works, a real plan, a plan that will make a difference, a plan that reflects the science and a plan that holds government accountable. As Sarah said, a river dies from the mouth up. South Australia was promised 450 gigalitres of environmental flows—additional water—more than a decade ago, but the Liberal and National parties dropped the Basin Plan off a cliff. Today's plan rebuilds it. At last, by December 2027, South Australia will get its 450 gigalitres. Most importantly, we will have also increased accountability. We will have an independent audit on the water allocated through the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. We've all watched the news, the shows, the Four Corners programs and the 7.30 reports that show our river system in crisis and that tell us the story of overallocation, the corruption and the greed that have led to fish kills, to blue-green algae blooms, to species decline and to low flows and the degradation of flood plains and wetlands. Fraud, rorting and lack of accountability have put this system at risk. We know our Murray-Darling River system is in need of fundamental increases in water flows. A river is not a resource to be used up and be expended to its last drop. It is life. We need an environmentally sound plan for our river, for our drinking water, for our animals, for our wildlife and for our communities. The agreement and the amendments the Greens bring today include for the first time an acknowledgement in the plan of First Nations peoples' connection, history, heritage and water needs. There is real funding on the table for an Aboriginal Water Entitlements Program—$100 million—and a mandatory say for First Nations in environmental water management and decision-making. I have camped on the river at the mouth in Coorong with Major 'Moogy' Sumner, one of the elders of Ngarrindjeri country. He took our Greens community to his country at the Coorong. We camped, and he told us the story of culture and heritage and reminded us of the power of this beautiful country. This is our heritage as a country and as a community. First Nations people, like Uncle 'Moogy' Sumner, on his father's Ngarrindjeri country, have great wisdom to share with us about the health of the river and the care for the plants, the animals, the country and the ecology of our river system. Scientists must also be listened to. We must take account of the impact of climate change on our river system, and the original Murray-Darling plan did not. This bill is, with our Greens amendments, a critical lifeline—a guarantee in law of greater flows of water down the river, especially for South Australia. It's a breakthrough agreement. It's a landmark. It has the promise to rescue our river from the broken promises of the Liberal and National parties. We are long overdue for an independent audit. Our river has suffered from greed, from overextraction and from failing to take account of climate change. Not so long ago I paddled out on the river near Renmark and saw the hard work of Riverland communities in recovering the ecologies of the river and its backwaters. We camped and kayaked around Renmark with my friends, who happen to be here with me in the chamber as I talk today. We shared the optimism of the possibility of regeneration of the wetlands and the backwaters of the river: the green shoots on ancient trees, the long-buried seeds of plants recovering in the river and those wetlands as they are well-managed back to health. So thanks, Natalie Fuller and Peter Gill, for that adventure, and for sharing that experience of what good management of our system can look like. People up and down the river care passionately for their river and the community. I've been the guest of the Renmark Irrigation Trust, one of Australia's oldest irrigation trusts. In five years to June 2022, the trust has rehabilitated many sites—more than 12—putting water back into 120 hectares of land around Renmark. They are regenerating flood plains in partnership with councils, the state and federal governments and local landholders. This is a taste of what we need. We need the water coming down the river. We need the resources to support communities to make these changes, to advocate and deliver the water and the consequences for their communities as we recover from the long-term degradation due to past irrigation practices and the failure of good management and accountability up and down our river. Locals along the river know we need water to address that degradation, to rehabilitate our river—not just in Renmark, but up and down the whole river system. This plan puts water back into the river. We need that additional water into the Darling/Barka and into the Murray, and we need real accountability to deliver integrity, transparency and truth about the state of our river and the plans we need to rebuild it into the future. This set of amendments and this bill respond to the science, and they promise a more accountable delivery. This bill offers a better future for South Australians, more reliable water supply and a real improvement in the prospects of generations to come. I especially congratulate Senator Hanson-Young, working with the government, for this effort. The bill is a breakthrough; it promises a way forward. It will make a difference for the kids who come after us, for the food producers, for the communities, for the First Nations people who make their way and live with independence on the river system as millions of Australians do. We need a healthy, sustainable river system, and so many people tell us this. I'll end with a couple of quotes from South Australians. Glynn lives in South Australia and says: As a South Australian I have witnessed the result of being 'at the end of the line' as the river struggles to run its course out to sea. I am also aware of how important the river is to all South Australians, including our flora and fauna, as a water supply. It is our lifeblood. Jacqui, also from South Australia—she grew up in Renmark—says: I grew up in Renmark and now as an elderly woman I live in Goolwa. i came to live here in the early 2000s at a time of drought and was devastated to see the river so low. the destruction of wildlife and the degradation of the environment that our Nganrrindjeri inhabitants did so much to protect— over thousands of years. We must protect our rivers—they are truly our lifeline. This bill, as it's amended, offers a real opportunity to strengthen that lifeline and to create a better future for our communities up and down the river, for the kids to come and for our animals and plants into the future. 11:58 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The Murray-Darling is a vital part of Australia's environment and water supply. The river system supports the heartland of Australia's agriculture, provides three million people with their drinking water and sustains over one million square kilometres of Australia's inland environment. The objective of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is to restore and manage our waters, to protect the basin for future generations. Today's proposed legislation, the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, is facilitated by the implementation of this plan and I'm happy to support its passage in this chamber. The Murray River flows through my ancestral lands, through Swan Hill, the land of the Wamba Wamba people. The Murray-Darling Basin, which covers a vast area across this continent, has been home to First Nations people for over 65,000 years. For my people, the First Peoples of this country, the Murray River and other waterways were an essential life force, and they continue to play that part today in all our lives. We, the First Peoples of this country, were the first to navigate this waterway. We were the first to satisfy our thirst by drinking from these waters. We were the first to catch its fish and the first to use these waters to harvest our food. We've known these waterways for tens of thousands of years, and tens of thousands of years of our memories flow through these mighty waterways. We don't need the Bureau of Meteorology to tell us that on this land, on this great continent of ours, drought has always been a part of its condition. The millennium drought reminded us of this reality. In response, we saw the Murray-Darling Basin Plan emerge. The idea behind the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is simple. It helps our rivers and those who depend on it to get through the drought years, when rivers are at their lowest, with water still flowing through them. This plan was developed together with the basin states and territory governments, in recognition of the fact that we have to plan to ensure the sustainability of the basin. That is why, in 2012, over a decade ago now, Labor signed off on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is what responsible governments do. We plan for the tough times. But our nation didn't haven't a responsible government over the last decade. Barnaby Joyce was the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources when he bought water licences from Eastern Australia Agriculture for $80 million. Eastern Australia Agriculture made a whopping $52 million profit on the deal. We know who really profited from the deal. We know which member of the Liberal Party had ties to Eastern Australian Agriculture, don't we? Those opposite know who I'm talking about. I say to Angus: 'Fantastic. Great move. Well done, Angus.' The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 That is an adverse inference. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It is an adverse inference. I'll ask you to withdraw that. We've gone through this a lot. Senator STEWART 299352 I'm happy to withdraw that. The truth is that a decade of the coalition in government, in power, has desecrated this plan. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan recommended we restore 450 gigalitres of water to the rivers. Over the last decade, the coalition restored two gigalitres. Two gigalitres in just over nine years! At their pace, the plan would have been delivered sometime around the year 4000. Since we were elected in May last year, just 18 months ago, this Labor government has restored 26 gigalitres of water to our rivers. The gross negligence and mismanagement of our water under the previous government has led to catastrophic environmental consequences for the flora and fauna in this region. Three years ago the drought brought the Darling River and those who depend on it to their knees, when the Darling River stopped flowing for more than 400 days. That is not how you care for country. Desperate for water, farming communities suffered and the native fish suffered an indelible loss of life by the millions. That is not how you care for farming communities and is not how you care for our native wildlife. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan should have been completed by 2024, and it would have been completed by 2024 if not for the reckless sabotage of this plan by the coalition. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has advised the government that the delivery of this plan by the original deadline of June 2024 is no longer tenable. This is the cost of the negligence of the coalition. Before the federal election in 2022, Labor promised that we would deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, as it was designed and in line with science. Our Water for Australia plan outlined our approach to futureproofing Australia's water resources. It includes a five-point plan to safeguard the Murray-Darling Basin: first, to deliver the water recovery targets in the Basin Plan, including the 450 gigalitres of water for enhanced environmental outcomes; second, to increase compliance and improve metering and monitoring; third, to restore transparency, integrity and confidence in water markets and water management; fourth, to increase First Nations ownership and involvement in decision-making to facilitate access to cultural, spiritual, environmental and economic benefits; and, finally, to update the science underpinning the Basin Plan. This bill is integral to achieving what we said we would do: recover 450 gigalitres of water to support better environmental outcomes. This bill is a product of extensive consultation. Over the last 18 months, this government has held almost 700 consultation activities, including forums and webinars. We've worked with states, territories and councils, farmers, irrigators, scientists and experts, environmentalists and First Nations communities. This bill comes after a historic agreement reached by the Commonwealth and basin states earlier in the year to ensure that the Basin Plan was delivered in full. We secured more time to deliver the remaining water based on expert advice. This means more time to recover 450 gigalitres of water for the environment, with a new deadline of 31 December 2027, and more time to deliver water infrastructure projects, with a new deadline of 31 December 2026. We secured more options to deliver the remaining water, including water-efficient infrastructure projects and voluntary water purchases. We secured more funding to deliver the remaining water and to support communities where voluntary water purchasing has flow-on impacts. This includes a Commonwealth support package to minimise any negative social and economic impacts associated with delivering the environmental outcomes intended to be delivered by the Basin Plan. Finally, we secured more accountability for all Murray-Darling Basin governments, including helping them to deliver on their obligations. We have discussed these matters in good faith and at considerable length. Now is the time to act. We continue to achieve progress on the plan by supporting efficiency measures, which include projects to upgrade irrigation systems, line water delivery channels or install water meters. We are also supporting productivity improvements in manufacturing or irrigated agriculture and changes to urban water management practices to reduce water use. The first major change under this proposed legislation is in relation to the Water for the Environment Special Account, or WESA. WESA was set up by the government as a funding mechanism for these efficiency measures. This account was set up to provide funding to acquire the additional 450 gigalitres of water and remove physical constraints. There is over $1.3 billion left unspent in this account, which can help us reach this critical target. But the restrictions imposed on the account under the current legislation introduced by those opposite inhibit us in achieving that outcome. The proposed amendments will broaden the range of water recovery options to restore our rivers. The second major change in this legislation is to the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism. These projects are designed to achieve environmental outcomes while keeping water in productive use. Currently, 16 of these 36 projects are not forecast to be ready or operational by July next year. Of the 605 gigalitres that these projects are meant to keep in productive use, more than half may not be realised. It's clear that some of the original projects will never be delivered. If we're going to achieve the plan in full, we need to give the states more time to deliver viable projects. This is a very reasonable ask from the states. This bill gives them this extension. The third part of this bill involves substantial and long-overdue reform to Australia's water market. Water markets are an important part of our agricultural system, but, as things currently stand, they lack integrity and transparency. Two years ago, the ACCC examined this market in some depth and found that its rules were inadequate and needed to be reformed. In particular, they found that there was a lack of quality, timely and accessible information for those participating in water markets. They found that there were a limited number of rules for market participants and no body to oversee their activities, which undermined confidence in fair and efficient markets. The ACCC also found that the complexity of the markets meant that opportunities were best understood and leveraged largely by professional traders and large agribusinesses with the time and knowledge to analyse and navigate them. Finally, all their research highlighted a lack of trust about whether key institutions were fair or working to benefit water users. The bill amends the Water Act, Basin Plan and Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to implement recommendations made by the ACCC. The bill introduces a framework to create an enforceable, mandatory code for water market intermediaries. It provides the ACCC with increased information-gathering powers to facilitate transparency. It introduces civil penalties for market manipulation and doubles the penalty for insider trading. It will allow the ACCC, as the code and conduct regulator, to monitor water prices and investigate misconduct allegations. The bill acknowledges First Nations peoples' connection, history and water needs, and provides an additional $100 million in funding for the Aboriginal Water Entitlement Program. It also introduces mandatory reporting to demonstrate how environmental water holders have considered First Nations values and uses, and how they have involved First Nations peoples in environmental water decisions. These proposed amendments offer us a path forward from a decade of sabotage and negligence towards the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and to this end I commend this bill to the Senate. 12:11 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The coalition deplores the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 because parts of it are a real kick in the guts for regional Australia and, in particular, for south-west Queensland. Though the coalition supports extending the deadlines for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the coalition cannot support the removal of the social and economic neutrality test on recovering water for environmental purposes because to do that hurts my communities in Queensland, particularly in south-west Queensland. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is an incredibly sophisticated part of our water policy in Australia. It covers Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a core aspect of our national framework for water policy. This is because, currently, the water in the Murray-Darling Basin is used to support the 2.6 million people that live across the network of rivers. The basin provides irrigation for much of our agriculture, supporting over 7,000 irrigated agricultural businesses that produce $24 billion worth of food and fibre each year, including all our nation's rice and 96 per cent of our country's cotton. The towns in south-west Queensland are heavily reliant on the Murray-Darling Basin for crop production, especially across St George and Goondiwindi. The Paroo, Warrego, Condamine, Balonne, Moonie and the broader border rivers support almost all of the agriculture production across southern and south-west Queensland. So what aspects of this bill say to those people—the constituents of mine and of Senator Scarr—is that they aren't important. They are second-rate. They are second-class Australians according to this bill. With years of bipartisan support, the coalition and the Labor Party have worked together to ensure that water is allocated for environment purposes only if it has a positive or a neutral social and economic impact on the welfare of relevant regional and rural communities. This Labor government want to change that. This bill removes the provision for water being extracted for environmental purposes to have a positive social and economic impact on the relevant communities. What this bill does, these piles of printed paper, is kick those communities and punch those communities. It scratches and slaps them and pushes them down. This is the modern Labor Party, who do not care about Australians who live west of the Great Dividing Range. This is the modern Labor Party, who are more concerned about doing preference deals with the Greens to ensure they survive and stay in power. If this bill is about supporting rural, regional and remote Australia, as those on the Left have so arrogantly claimed, then why remove the provision that requires it to support rural, regional and remote Australia? This is deplorable. This is a joke. This is a kick in the guts. The removal of this provision is not only a backflip on Labor policy; it panders to their new woke base and ignores the pleas of farmers and irrigators, who want to ensure that you have food on your table at night. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, but this government is so out of touch that this bill, through their policies that underpin this bill, will increase the cost of food and vegetables by removing water from farmers, who, in some areas, are in the middle of a drought or in the middle of a long dry. It also removes support from those who live in these communities. I wonder why they want to do that. Why do they want to hurt Australians? Why do they want to hurt Australians who live west of the Great Dividing Range? It comes down to where the modern Labor Party are at in terms of their policy platform. They know that the only way they can ever win elections is by doing preference deals with the Greens. This is the modern Labor Party. The Labor Party have shifted so far to the Left that they are leaving behind generations of Australians and leaving behind large swathes of Australia. That is a shame because it is important in Australia's democracy that there is a broad Centre Left party and a broad Centre Right party. But what we see with the Labor Party now is just a left-wing party that thinks food comes from a supermarket. The Labor Party think that farmers are something that they read about in history books. The Labor Party think that modern Australia does not need rural, regional and remote Australia. This is the fundamental difference between our two sides of politics. On the Centre Right, on the Right side of politics, we believe that all Australians, regardless of where they live, whether they live in a place called St George, which I guarantee probably no Labor senators have ever been to— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator McGRATH 217241 It is a beautiful place. It is a beautiful part of Queensland. It has a very good mayor and a very good council. Whether people live in St George or whether they live in Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne, you should have the same access to Australia—by that, I mean the same access to the modern brilliance that is Australia. But under Labor they say that if you live in the bush you are a second-class citizen and you are a second-rate citizen. If you don't believe me on this, just look at what this bill is going to do to the people who live in south-west Queensland, the people who live in St George and the broader south-west community. This bill is a kick in the guts, and that's why we should oppose it. 12:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, the Murray-Darling Basin is an important topic for One Nation because the Murray-Darling Basin starts in Queensland. Just because the water ends up in South Australia does not mean it's South Australian water. Queensland has a say in this as well, and I will continue to stand up for Queensland farmers, regions and communities. During the last Senate session, I spoke about this Labor government's decision to withdraw funding from the Emu Swamp Dam near Stanthorpe in Queensland's Southern Downs. This area is in the Murray-Darling Basin and is one of the areas that ran dry in the last drought, requiring water to be trucked in for weeks using a convoy of water tankers. The Emu Swamp Dam was a proposal for a modest dam to retain 22 gigalitres of water for local residents. When I asked Minister Watt about the suffering and economic damage that decision would cause, the minister led the Senate on a merry dance that social media has rightly smashed and ridiculed. Minister Watt avoided admitting that, yes, the Albanese government cancelled the Emu Swamp Dam and, yes, the Albanese government came back a year later and cancelled all the infrastructure upgrades in the region just to make sure the dam was never built. Such is the ideology behind the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. Minister Watt, a Queensland senator, was happy to tell the residents of the Southern Downs that, in the next drought, they will have to truck their water in again—and in the next and the next and the next. Wow! What arrogance from Canberra bureaucrats and city politicians like Minister Watt! What arrogance from environmentalists who would see Australia destroyed as long as they get their way and as though humans don't matter! These same urban elites go to Coles and buy their Australian almond milk for their half-strength lattes—organic, of course—buy Australian bread, buy Australian meat and buy Australian vegetables. Where do these Green and Teal fools think these products come from? From the Southern Downs and from farmers across Queensland right through to the Murray-Darling Basin—the very farmers this legislation is smashing, gutting. Among all of the technical, I speak in favour of humans and people. Before you say it's not happening, let me share with the Senate a Hansard record of question time in the Victorian parliament from just two weeks ago. One Nation member for Northern Victoria, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, asked the Victorian water minister what her government's position on water buybacks was. Here's part of Labor Minister Shing's excellent, heartfelt response: At the moment, we are in a process of discussion and debate at a federal level about the future of the Murray-Darling Basin plan. Oh, really? I thought it was settled. Apparently that was government misinformation as well. Her remarks continued: In 2018 all jurisdictions party to the Murray-Darling Basin plan signed up to what is known as the socio-economic criteria, meaning that water could not be returned if it did harm to communities—that is, that any return would need to satisfy a test of positive or neutral socio-economic outcomes for communities. Victoria remains committed to achieving the outcomes and the objectives of our share of returning environmental water to the plan in the terms that we agreed. Victoria opposes buybacks. Her words. Victoria: … oppose buybacks for a range of reasons and based on modelling … showing that irrigated production job losses of over 40 per cent were observed in Victorian communities due to water recovery for the environment, including in Cobram, 40 per cent of job losses; Kerang, 43 per cent of job losses; Cohuna, 43 per cent of job losses; Kyabram, 42 per cent of job losses; Tatura, 42 per cent of job losses; Rochester, 42 per cent of job losses; Pyramid Hill, 66 per cent of job losses; Boort, 66 per cent of job losses; Shepparton, 61 per cent of job losses; Swan Hill, 53 per cent of job losses; Red Cliffs, 76 per cent of job losses; and Merbein, 50 per cent of job losses. The Victorian government has this information because they funded Frontier Economics to conduct a study on the effect of water acquisition on rural communities. Queensland Premier Palaszczuk has not done the same thing. Under Premier Palaszczuk, if you don't live in a Labor electorate in the urban south-east, you don't exist. For the Queensland Labor Party, Queensland ends in Toowoomba and Noosa. Good on Victoria for defending their rural communities; shame on Premier Palaszczuk for selling out regional Queenslanders. Forty per cent job losses is a common figure I hear when I travel to Queensland basin towns like St George, Dirranbandi and Charleville. This is not a matter of those people walking away and having to make a new start somewhere else—if they can find accommodation and a job, of course. Rural communities have a critical mass, the point below which the whole town ceases to be viable. The doctor leaves, the bank closes, the school closes, small businesses close and, suddenly, the town becomes unlivable. Many towns in Queensland and across the basin are facing that point now. Another 760 gigalitres of buybacks will kill them off. The shocking truth is this: wiping out towns and agriculture across the basin is an intended consequence of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. When I was first elected to the Senate and travelled down the Darling and Murray system, I spoke with a representative of the Murray-Darling Basin in the river lands. His words have stuck with me: 'The Murray-Darling Basin agenda is based on the principle that many towns along the river are in the wrong place. Those towns would not be built today because of their reliance on irrigation and have to go.' They have to go? That's the real agenda here. That's why this bill allows the minister to buy water from anywhere in the basin, not just within a valley. As Minister Shing, the Victorian Labor Minister for Water, rightly pointed out, 'This act removes the socioeconomic test.' Now, finally, Minister Plibersek's intentions are out in the open. Entire agricultural areas are on the minister's hit list, areas that 'shouldn't be there'. When environmentalists and city politicians like Minister Plibersek hold this bill high, declaring, 'Let the rivers run,' what they really mean is death to family farms and death to the towns they support. At least be honest about it. What effect will this cruel policy, delivered to satisfy ignorant leftist city dwellers, have on our beautiful country? The Murray-Darling Basin accounts for $22 billion in food and fibre production needed to feed and clothe the world. Hell, it's needed to feed the two million people this Labor government let into Australia in the last 12 months. We have 2.2 million new mouths to feed and the government's response is to reduce the water available to grow food. There are five million tourist visa holders that have to be fed. No wonder our beautiful country is in trouble. We have a government that can't put two and two together. I've travelled the basin, listening to people across the whole basin—from the northern basin, including Charleville, Dirranbandi, St George and Stanthorpe in Queensland; from Albury and Tenterfield in the east of New South Wales; from Broken Hill in the west of New South Wales; from Cobram in regional Victoria; through Menindee, Mildura and Renmark; all the way to Goolwa and the Murray mouth in South Australia. I've listened with farmers, irrigators, researchers and environmentalists. I've consulted with Aboriginal people, for whom the water in the river is their life, the centre of their culture and the centre of their health and happiness. Drought harms Aboriginal people and much damage was done even as the plan was nearing completion. And damage continues to be done. To illustrate this, I saw an ABC video made in October this year that talked to Aboriginal Australians along the river. When buybacks were happening in 2012, they were promised some of the water would be returned to their river in improved flows. Two thousand eight hundred gigalitres of acquisition later and those improved flows for Aboriginal water have never happened. What we've seen is a pattern of water flow that's harming the connected system. One reason is water trading. I'm not talking about productive water trading to keep family farms going; rather, we see foreign owned corporations exploiting water trading to keep their massive monoculture plantings alive. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of permanent planting—almonds, citrus and grapes—are pulling water from places like southern Queensland down below the border to western Victoria and to South Australia. Those water allocations are being sent down in floods to increase the amounts that arrives. Aboriginal communities are left without the regular environmental flows that are so much a part of a river tribe's life—that's their word: 'life'. As one elder said, 'We were used to justify buybacks and now we have been forgotten.' It sounds like the Voice. They were used to try and get it through, and now they are forgotten. The other major culprit is environmental watering. That watering is being sent down in floods, which, once again, contribute to flooding along the river and do enormous environmental damage. In years past, the flooding that happened in the spring and early summer and during tropical storms in the Queensland basin went down the river as a flood, watering the associated forests. The difference today is that those short periods of natural flooding were between natural long periods with low river flow. That natural cycle allowed the banks to dry and harden to withstand the next flood. What used to happen was the water in the dams was released across the year for mostly local use. If it was not used, it was carried over. Most areas in the basin still have carryover water. Now we have huge amounts of water being sent south to keep massive permanent plantings watered and huge amounts being sent down to water native forests that don't need it, and the river is stuffed with severe, catastrophic riverbank erosion and forest drowning—and forests dying. That's the problem this government should be addressing. Instead, Minister Plibersek and her electorate full of city lefties were declaring, 'Let the river run!' The minister is killing the natural environment in the name of saving it, ignoring the harm that's being done—and being done in the name of the Basin Plan. There's nothing in this bill that addresses the fundamental flaw in the plan. The mismanagement of river flow is based across the basin largely on unmeasured guesses of water flow—not on data, not on measurements. It does not matter if you're mismanaging 2,800 gigalitres or 3,200 gigalitres, the outcome will be the same: death to farming, death to our precious natural environment, death to the regions, death to Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal society. Where are the targets for minimum and maximum heights of riverbanks to protect and repair the environment? Not here. Where's the plan to repair hundreds of kilometres of erosion down the Goulburn, Murray and Edward rivers? The Murray-Darling Basin Plan destroyed those rivers, and nothing in this bill will fix them. This bill will continue the environmental catastrophe. I see limits to diversion for irrigation, yet I don't see limits for diversion for environment watering—meaning how much water is to be taken out for the drowning and killing of forests as opposed to how much water is to be kept in the river for desalination, fish health and so on. Where are the hard limits? Rivers suffer when water is taken out. It makes no difference if the water is being extracted for irrigation or to drown forests. Where are the water quality limits to control blackwater, which is caused through the overwatering of wetlands, like the Barmah-Millewa Forest, under orders from the Commonwealth? Not here. Where's the ratio of water over the barrages as against basin inflows, which would ensure the rivers actually flow? Not here. Where are the explicit statements of minimum flows for Aboriginal water in each river? Not here. Real plans are based on measurements and data. Without measurement of river and creek flows across the Murray-Darling Basin, there is no plan, just political patronage, corruption and control. Where's the solution to this salination in the lower lagoon of the Coorong? It's time to talk about the subject that shall not be spoken: the basin inflow from the south-east of South Australia, which is water supposedly from outside the basin that flows into the basin to refresh the water in the Coorong and Lower Lakes, inflow that before Western settlement delivered hundreds of gigalitres of water a year and flushed the Coorong and Lower Lakes to maintain a healthy environment. Years of draining the south-east to create a productive farming area have sent the flow directly out to sea, bypassing the basin instead of into the basin, where, by the way, it's damaging the saltwater environment of the sea and the seagrass beds that stabilise the coastline. One Nation supports the farming community in the south-east of South Australia and seeks to protect vital agriculture in the area. The initial round of redirecting the drains back into the basin was completed, and basin inflow has been partly restored. The South Australia government now counts this flow is basin SDL recovery, after many years of my campaigning for that very outcome. Thank you. The south-east flow restoration project takes water from some of the drains and redirects the water into Tilley Swamp and then along natural watercourses through Salt Creek into the lower Coorong. Being a swamp, the water soaks in and forms part of the unconstrained aquifer that flows into the Coorong and Lower Lakes at a depth of as little as one metre. The aquifer flow is not measured, yet it should be. The improvement in water quality in these waterways suggests more water is arriving that the 25 gigalitres that has been credited—much more. I foreshadow my second reading amendment calling on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to measure all inflow into the basin from the south-east, both surface and aquifer flow. This surely must be a prudent exercise before embarking on costly water buybacks that will have a catastrophic effect on the basin just to meet arbitrary water acquisition targets—and those are the points that I don't have time to go into. This plan is already highly complicated, and this bill makes it more complicated. It involves micromanaging with slogans. It involves taking taxpayer money to defeat productivity on farms and to raise food prices. Taxpayer money is being stolen to raise food prices. New South Wales farmers are moving to the Flinders River in North Queensland, and we now see the Labor-Greens-Pocock-teal coalition in full flight, destroying our country. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 isn't a plan to improve the health of our rivers and lakes; it's an open declaration of war on farming and rural communities, ideology driving a political and social war to the exclusion of decency and common sense. Making farming harder will reduce the supply of fresh fruit and drive up prices at a time when inflation is already out of hand. The Albanese government does not need another policy failure to add to its collection. I urge the government: don't do this! For the sake of every Australian who eats food, we oppose this bill accelerating the death knell of economic food production and food security. In opposing this bill, One Nation protects the natural environment, protects food security, protects economic activity and protects regional communities. 12:34 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. First of all, I want to commend the work of my colleague Senator Hanson-Young and her ongoing commitment to saving the Murray-Darling rivers and to critical environmental outcomes in my home state of New South Wales. I also commend her for the courage which she has shown for her home state of South Australia; core to that is saving the beautiful Murray-Darling river system. The agreement that has been reached today takes us a significant step towards that goal of saving the Murray-Darling river system. It does not take us to our final destination of ensuring the protection of the river, but I've got to say that it is perhaps one of the most significant steps forward for the river that we've seen in decades. The angry opposition we're hearing from some elements in this chamber, and the angry opposition we've heard to any kind of priority for environmental flows for the river, is at odds with the interests of our environment; at odds with the interests of First Nations peoples, and their clear need for cultural flows; and at odds with the interests of our farming communities, who absolutely need thriving healthy rivers to produce the food and fibre that we desperately need. And, ultimately, it's at odds with the interests of this gorgeous, extraordinary and unique place that we live in, and the animals and the plants who share it with us. That's because water is life, and millions of Australians rely on the Murray-Darling Basin for drinking water, jobs and recreation, and for that gorgeous ribbon of life and biodiversity that winds its way through our states and through this beautiful country that we share it with. There are no jobs on a dead river, there's no agriculture on a dead river and, obviously, there's no life on a dead river, and that's what we have to avoid. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was originally intended to be an overall plan for the catchment. It was intended to stop the warring and water theft, and it was intended to deliver real and measurable environmental flows, along with guarantees for adequate, predictable and sustainable amounts of water for agriculture. But despite more than a decade, only 26 gigalitres have been recovered up till now under the plan—26 gigalitres, when the goal, roughly, for this time next year was 450 gigalitres. I don't know how we could describe it as anything but a lost decade, or perhaps the decade spent dealing with rorts and ugly, grubby politics from a former coalition government that seemed hell-bent on destroying the Murray-Darling Basin Plan rather than delivering for it. It was a government that seemed comfortable with letting the river die at the hands of some pretty greedy vested interests who were playing politics with perhaps one of the most critical environmental assets on our continent. We need water to keep flowing in the Murray-Darling—we need it urgently. And we need more water, not less. If we let the irrigators and the big corporate agricultural interests play, they would suck every last drop out of the river. We would see continuing summers of fish kills, blue-green algae blooms and dead rivers. Those things might deliver short-term corporate profits for a few big agricultural corporate interests, but that's when family farms die. That's when communities walk off the land. That's when First Nations connections with rivers die, and that's when the rivers die. That is what we have been fighting for—a critical lifeline for the Murray-Darling Basin in the face of the existing impacts of climate change and the further impacts of climate change that we know are already plugged into the system. That's why we need to pass this legislation, rapidly, this week. I and the Greens don't pretend that this bill delivers everything that we need, but it will deliver real environmental water flows across the basin, it will close a series of loopholes in the plan and it will lead to significantly increased transparency and accountability, as well as wins for First Nations communities. What have we managed to agree to? The agreement includes a guarantee in law that the environment will finally receive the 450 gigalitres of water needed to protect our precious river system—no more media releases, no more lost words, but a legal guarantee that that minimum of 450 gigalitres will be brought back and put into the environmental flows. That's a win for my home state of New South Wales, it's a win for South Australia and, critically, it's a win for the Menindee Lakes in my home state. The Menindee Lakes have been a political football in New South Wales. The former coalition government was willing to literally kill the lakes for the interests of irrigators, with a deeply flawed plan that the local farming community opposed, the local community in and around Menindee opposed, the Barka people opposed, First Nations people opposed—everybody opposed, except for a small handful of corporate irrigators. Yet the former Commonwealth coalition government in this place and the former state coalition government joined together to deliver for the interests of a handful of multinational irrigators, over the interests of pretty much everybody else, including the environment and the lakes themselves. Well, with this agreement, that Menindee Lakes plan is dead, and not before time. This is a chance to actually save the Menindee Lakes—a spectacular part of our continent, full of environmental diversity. There's also an independent audit of water in the basin. The purpose of that is to stop the rorts that we know are already plugged into the system, to put some integrity in the system and to restore trust, because we absolutely need to restore trust after the last lost decade. It will also give the Commonwealth essential power to withdraw state government infrastructure projects. That, of course, is one of the key elements which mean that we can stop the Menindee Lakes project. Without this legislative capacity, we may well find that the Commonwealth government is forced to continue with that disastrous Menindee Lakes project. This will end it. I understand we have a political commitment from the minister to end the funding of the Menindee Lakes project. Of course, a long overdue amendment is to include in the objects of the act acknowledgement of First Nations peoples' connection to water, their rights, their interests and their values. Of course that should have been in the act when it was originally passed, but now, finally, we'll put it in the act. With that will come a significant amount of money to make it a reality—$100 million for First Nations water and Aboriginal water entitlements programs. Those two things together mean that, finally, this parliament is listening in part to First Nations elders. I give credit to the Dharriwaa Elders Group up in Walgett. For me, they have been a compass point in this discussion and debate. The Dharriwaa Elders Group up in Walgett live on the river. They know how essential to culture connection to the river is. They have said, at each point, that it needs to be dealt with as a catchment and that First Nations peoples need to be at the table, to talk about the health of the river, to talk about the flows of the river and to explain the connection between land and culture, country and river, because the Dharriwaa elders will tell you that they've been talking about the river for 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 years, and they might know a thing or two about it. When they said that the original draft of this bill didn't do enough to save their river, didn't respond to the needs for culture and didn't acknowledge their wealth of knowledge, they were right. These amendments put in those critical things in the objects of the act and then put the funding next to it. I think that shows in part that the Dharriwaa Elders Group and other First Nations groups that have engaged with us on this are being listened to, finally. I think that is a significant win. It's not just the Dharriwaa elders. An article in the National Tribune states: Polly Cutmore, a Gamilaraay/Wirri/Anaiwan traditional owner has said: We need to recognise the rights of the river as a source of life in our country and those rights need to be respected. Our culture would not exist without it but us murris have become alienated from the decisions that are made about how it is looked after. What we know about our country and the changes that the colonisers have brought, tells us that drier times are coming and now it is so important to listen to what Mother Earth and our Ancestors are telling us. We need to restore the flows that give life to the river and support our culture. How true—no river, no life. That's what they've been telling us. My first personal experience of just how appallingly we treat our river systems was when I was 14 or 15. I was camping in north-west New South Wales on a tributary of the Paroo, I think it was. I had gone off on a little motorbike to sit on the side of this lagoon, off the edge of the river. It was extraordinary, with all this bird life, monitor lizards running around. I was extracting carp out of the river and feeding the monitors with them. As I was doing that, as I was sitting on the banks of the river in this extraordinary place, I remember over the course of an hour and a half, the river went down by about 1½ metres, almost two metres. I didn't know what had happened. I was 14 or 15. I had never had an experience like this before. I was sitting on the side of this extraordinary little lagoon off the river and it disappeared under my feet. I jumped back on my motorbike and went back into camp, which was near one of the homesteads. I remember saying, 'What on earth happened?' They said, 'Go and check it out at the homestead.' I went and saw a bloke called 'Buck' at the homestead and said, 'What has happened to the river?' He said, 'Oh, mate, they have turned the cotton pumps on. It happens like that. They suck the river dry.' I genuinely couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe what was happening to the river. Since then the extractions have got bigger, that industry has grown at the expense river, and never have I thought more desperately that this parliament needs to act to protect that beautiful lifeline. As the NCC said in New South Wales, 'This is a win for the Murray-Darling.' Jacqui Mumford, the CEO of the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales said: We commend the Federal Government for wanting to cancel the Menindee project, which was never going to work. Now we need to see how they intend to return real water to the rivers, in particular the Darling-Baaka in the leadup to the next drought. … … … We've seen time and time again that the devil is in the details. We are still waiting to understand how the government is planning to ensure the Darling-Baaka is protected. … … … Communities along the Darling-Baaka have borne the brunt of decades of water mismanagement, and have done an amazing job of advocating for the rivers. I commend every word coming from Jacqui Mumford and the NCC. This has been a hard negotiation. We've heard a lot of lies from a couple of big corporate vested interests in the farming community willing to sell out their rivers, towns, sell out the mum-and-dad farmers, sell out First Nations people for a short-term profit and, thankfully, they're being stared down and we're now going to have a bill that the Greens can vote for. I do want to credit the hard work, the consistency, the belief in the river and the belief we can do something good that's been shown by Senator Hanson-Young in this. I commend her for her work, and let's get this legislated. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Shoebridge, we're trying to get rid of the word 'lie' from the lexicon of the chamber. You're not the only offender. Could I ask you to bear that in mind in future contributions? Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Everywhere I said 'lie'—unintentional mistruth. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 That would be preferred to your Deputy President. 12:49 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I also rise to speak to the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. I first want to start by acknowledging, as Senator Shoebridge just did, the amazing contribution of my colleague, Senator Hanson-Young, who sits in front of me, and associate myself not only with her comments but also with my colleague, Senator Shoebridge. The fact is that millions of people rely on the Murray-Darling. Without water flowing through these rivers that make up a huge river system—the largest and most complex in the country, in fact—ecosystems will die, jobs will be lost and entire communities will suffer. The Murray-Darling spans five separate jurisdictions in this country: South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, the ACT and Queensland. It covers an area of one million square kilometres. That's the size of Spain and France combined, so you can just imagine how enormous that is. It is home to six internationally significant wetlands, 35 endangered species and over 120 species of waterbird. This is all at risk because of poor management and overextraction. We need more water flowing through the Murray, not less. Otherwise, we will see more mass fish kills, blue-green algal blooms and degradation of flood plains and delicate wetland systems. We over here in the Greens will not sit back and just allow this to happen. It's happened on the watch of this government and previous governments that have been administering the Basin Plan, and this is why our colleagues—particularly Senator Hanson-Young—have worked to improve this bill. The win that the Greens have secured will guarantee those environmental flows across the basin, close the loopholes in the plan to increase transparency and accountability and deliver money for First Nations communities in the basin, as well as acknowledging the important connection. While I was in my office, I listened to Senator Roberts talk about First Nations people's connection, but it's also their rights, interests and values that are connected, not just to the river systems but also to the basin. Just last sitting, I stood in this place and talked about the importance of water to First Nations people. This was when we were debating the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023, Senator Hanson-Young's private senator's bill. I spoke about how water was life for First Nations people. It is an intrinsic part of our culture and the vitality and resilience of my people. I spoke about how native title very intentionally excluded our water rights, and I spoke about how it's our birthright to continue to fight for and protect water in our country. In this debate, senators have spoken a lot about environmental flows and how we can ensure that there's sufficient environmental flow through the Murray-Darling to keep it alive and healthy, which we absolutely need to do. I absolutely concur with those comments. However, the other aspect to this is the importance of cultural flows. Cultural flows relate to sufficient water flows for activities such as fishing, hunting, ceremony and harvesting, as well as preserving and protecting ancient burial grounds, songlines, scar trees and camp sites. There are over 40 First Nations nations across the basin that rely on the Murray-Darling, and they've done so for tens of thousands of years. These nations know the river, they know the basin and they know how to use it sustainably. The Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations, or MLDRIN, whom I had the pleasure of speaking to last week, represent some of these nations and have long called for First Nations justice in the Murray-Darling Basin. I want to acknowledge their very strong advocacy in this space. MLDRIN strongly endorsed an open letter from legal practitioners and academics which stated that the bill in its original form failed to address the rights and interests of the nations across the basin and was in fact inconsistent with the rights and principles contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This framework systematically excluded and discriminated against First Nations people and deprived these communities of the opportunity to manage the river and contribute to its health. Environmental flows keep the river alive. Cultural flows keep our culture alive. A healthy river is directly linked to First Nations people being able to use the river to maintain cultural practices. This, in turn, is directly linked to maintaining our identity, wellbeing, capacity-building and intergenerational teachings of our people. The Murray-Darling is a topical example at the moment, but it also applies to many river and freshwater systems right across this country. This is why it's so important that there is funding set aside for First Nations water rights, that there is a framework to use it effectively and that that money is actually delivered and spent where it should be, because that's what self-determination looks like in this country. In 2018 the previous government committed $40 million to establish and support First Nations investment in cultural and economic water entitlements and associated activities within the basin. The current government recommitted to this, and yet this money has not been spent. The environment minister admitted back in August that there's been very little work done about how this might happen, due to the fact there was no mechanism for allocating that water. If that weren't bad enough, the $40 million was nothing compared to the estimated value of water entitlements in the southern basin, which a report from earlier this year valued at $32.3 billion. Forty million dollars is just 0.1 per cent of that. I'm appalled, but I'm not actually surprised, that this government, alongside that former government, thought that that's all that black fellas were worth in this country—0.1 per cent. In fact, in August, when the new agreement regarding the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was announced, there was no mention of water for First Nations people. First Nations people in the Murray have been short-changed again. They were overlooked in the original Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 2012. They were strung along with $40 million that never came, and they were overlooked in the revised Murray-Darling Basin Plan this year. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, one of the wins the Greens have secured in this amendment is to the objects of the act, which is long overdue and will finally acknowledge—finally—the connection, rights, interests and values of the First Peoples that have called the Murray-Darling Basin home for tens of thousands of years. Another win that wouldn't have happened without the Greens is the increase from $40 million to $100 million for First Nations water and for the Aboriginal Water Entitlements Program to reflect the loss of value. That $40 million was never, never delivered to them. But we cannot let it only be about money that was promised before. You can bet that we will keep a very, very close eye on this to ensure that the money is being spent and delivered and that the government is talking to the right people—people like those in MLDRIN—when establishing this framework of how this money will be allocated and spent. The Greens have significantly improved this bill, and it's a win for the Murray. It's a win for First Nations water rights in this country. There's still a long way to go before First Nations connections and rights to water are upheld in the same regard as our connection and our rights to land are, but I believe this is a step in the right direction. This signals to traditional owners across the country that the Greens are in fact listening. We will use our power on the crossbench here to fight for your rights and to ensure that this government is forced to acknowledge those connections, rights, interests and values of First Peoples in the basin and that it doesn't, as Senator Shoebridge already alluded to, just appear as nice words in a press conference or a media release, but that it actually comes to life through legislation in this place, and the other, to ensure the delivery, accountability and transparency that First Peoples in this country deserve. Thank you. 12:59 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I am really pleased to be standing up here today to speak to the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 because it is a real win for our environment. It's a real win for the health of the Murray-Darling system, which is the lifeblood of so much of Australia. I particularly want to congratulate Senator Sarah Hanson-Young for the work she has done negotiating with the government, and I want to congratulate the government as well, for moving this legislation, for listening to the Greens, listening to the community, listening to First Nations peoples, listening to the environment and actually moving to legislate for some real, very significant wins for the river system. What is being guaranteed in this bill, guaranteed in law, is that our environment will finally receive the 450 gigalitres of water, the minimum that is needed to protect our precious river systems. This is a real breakthrough. It's going to deliver water across the whole basin, the entire basin—north and south. As I said, it's a minimum. Since the Murray-Darling plan was first developed there has been more than 2,100 gigalitres of water allocated each year, but according to what the river really needs there's a shortfall of almost 750 gigalitres a year. So the 450 is not an extraordinary amount. It's not over the top. It's not unreasonable. It is the minimum that's required to keep our river systems alive. It is a really good news story that at least we are getting that minimum. There are other things that have been negotiated and included in this legislation. The Greens have secured an independent audit of water in the basin to stop the rorts, to insert integrity and restore trust after a decade of mismanagement from vested interests. And, as Senator Cox has just outlined, we've secured $100 million for First Nations water and the Aboriginal water entitlements program to protect country and culture from greed and over-extraction. For the first time—and it's extraordinary that it's the first time—the laws governing the Murray-Darling Basin will recognise the unique connection that First Nations peoples have with the river system. This is a really significant piece of legislation. This breakthrough agreement will help protect the river from over-extraction, it's going to help protect the river from the massive fish kills and environmental degradation as our climate continues on its fairly chaotic but increasingly hotter way. It's particularly important that we have achieved this breakthrough now. When the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was being developed, I remember my late wife, Penny Whetton, a climate scientist, working on it. The fact is that climate change wasn't acknowledged in that original plan, the impacts of climate on our river systems were ignored. We know, and we've known for a very long time, what the likely impacts of global heating are on the Murray-Darling system—the reduction in water going into many parts of the basin that's likely to result, and the increased heat, meaning the increased evaporation and the increased water temperatures in the rivers. To actually get this water now, as we face really dreadful and tragic likely impacts of climate change, is so important. The other thing that this legislation is going to do is finally get in place a new agreement with all the basin states except Victoria. I do want to go to the issue in Victoria. There's a lot of the basin in my home state of Victoria. The Murray River rises in north-east Victoria. We have very significant tributaries of the Murray that flow through Victoria. It is crazy that the Victorian government haven't signed onto this plan. And so, while I'm standing here congratulating the federal Labor government—for working with the Greens, listening to the Greens, listening to the environment, listening to the First Nations people—for some reason, the Victorian government haven't been signing up. They have had this absolute blockage on water buybacks, which is crazy. We know that water has been overallocated in Victoria, just like it has been overallocated across the rest of the country. We know there's no economy and there are no jobs on dead rivers. If you're concerned about the future of agriculture in Victoria, if you're concerned about the future of the environment, if you're concerned about First Nations rights and First Nations justice, then you have to acknowledge that there are limits as to how much water you can take out of the rivers. The system just doesn't allow us to make more water. Sure, there are going to be some good years where there's a lot more water flowing in but, overall, the trend is that there's going to be less water flowing in because of climate change and there are going to be more reparations. We need to acknowledge that the system is overcommitted and there needs to be less water taken from the river. This is the basis of the need for buybacks. I call upon Victoria to come to their senses. This bill is going to allow for buybacks within Victoria now, so even if the Victorian government don't support them, if there are people wanting to sell water in Victoria, the Commonwealth will be able to buy it for the benefit of the river. What it means is that Victoria won't get any benefits of this legislation. They won't be able to get funding for a whole range of projects that might also be benefitting the river. I'm hoping that after this legislation has been pushed through the Victorian government will realise the benefits of also signing up to this legislation, and that they recognise the value of the legislation and of restoring our rivers to Victorian communities. There have been a lot of stories that were collected by the Murray-Darling Conservation Alliance, as part of the Stand by your River campaign—stories from First Nations leaders, fishers, farmers and community members from across the basin. Lots of them come from Victoria, not surprisingly. Two weeks ago, a number of these groups came to Canberra to present the Stand by your River petition, which had more than 10,000 signatures. I want to read out two testimonies from Victorians who were listed as part of this campaign. One is from Linley and Glenn, who say: We live close to the Kaiela (also known as the Goulburn River). Here, the river flows through Kaieltheban Clan homeland, on the Yorta Yorta Nation country. Our concern is for the health of the whole river system, and the importance of listening to Traditional Owners as we move—hopefully—to a greater sharing of this natural life-giving resource. Another Victorian story is from Irene, who says: The Murray Darling Basin holds an artery of Australia's heart. Degrading our river system by Restricting flows and pollution denies life to the natural systems that support our life. In the face of climate change we should be doing everything to enhance natural systems not undermine them. I know from the campaigns that have been run across Victoria, particularly the ones that have been coordinated by Environment Victoria, that there are many thousands of Victorians who are going to be celebrating this legislation going through the parliament today. They will continue to question why the Victorian government is so backwards in protecting the river environments, and why they are so backwards and so reluctant to accept the basic premise of the need to allow water to be bought back so it can benefit the environment. The other issue about Victoria that I want to raise is that their whole justification for being against water buybacks has been shown not to be based on good science. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority released a damning report recently that highlighted the Labor government's reliance on subpar research to justify their policy position on water recovery. This report, produced by the University of Adelaide's School of Economics and Public Policy, showed that successive governments have leaned on studies by expensive consultants which largely failed to meet basic research standards. This study detailed a lack of peer review, small control groups and inconsistent mathematical modelling across various studies which have helped inform Labor's stubborn opposition to water purchases. Our Greens MPs in the state parliament, on hearing of this research, said: This report raises serious questions about the integrity of water policy in Victoria. It's distressing to hear the Labor Government's position on water purchases is based on unreliable research and not based on science. I'm hoping that, with the good news that we've got today, we will have a change of heart in Victoria as well. I'm also hopeful about the expensive engineering projects the Victorian government have been relying upon to not support water buybacks. I'm heartened by the fact that there will now be an audit of all of these projects so that we can see which will actually benefit the environment and which won't. There are quite a few of these expensive engineering projects that we will see the end of after this audit. I'm very pleased that this legislation also gives the Commonwealth the ability to end the projects which are inappropriate. It may be that some of the projects in Victoria will help with water efficiency. I'm very hopeful that after a serious independent audit, some of those projects will go ahead, and the Victorian government will change its mind and realise that by signing up for this plan, they will benefit from some money potentially going into those projects. Congratulations again to Senator Hanson-Young and to the Labor Party for giving us a good news story. So much of the news in this place, so much of what we are doing, leads you to be despairing. Working together like this to get good outcomes gives me hope. It gives me hope that, when we look objectively and sensibly at the environmental needs of our planet, we can work together and get good outcomes. I'm really pleased to be speaking in support of this bill today. 13:10 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland We've just heard that the Labor Party and the Greens are teaming up again to sell out farming communities across Australia and Australian families who are already struggling to pay for groceries at the shops. This bill, the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill, will mean that there'll be less water used to grow food in Australia. That's what it will do. It will remove a cap on water buybacks that was properly put in place to protect Australia's agricultural productivity and food availability for all Australians. Now our nation's food bowl in the Murray-Darling Basin, a place that accounts for over 40 per cent of our food production and over 70 per cent of our peaches, apples, oranges and massive amounts of the fresh food in our shops, will be the playground of the Labor Party and the Greens to rip out water from food production and reduce the amount of food that is grown in our country. We already have a cost-of-living crisis. People are struggling to pay their bills. The government is going underwater because they're doing nothing to respond to the fact that people are struggling to pay their mortgages. Every time you go to Coles and Woolworths, you play that game where you estimate how much is in the trolley and how much it's going to cost you when you go through the checkout. Every time you do, you end up responding: 'Holy hell, that is a lot more than I thought it would be! Holy hell, I thought that would be half of what I put there, and this is just a couple of meals for my family this week! It's costing me a fortune.' People are struggling. They now know that when they walk into the shops, they have to think, 'Have I got enough on the credit card to get out the other way once I get what my family needs?' And this government is doing nothing to help. In fact, the deal that they've just done with the Greens today is going to make things worse. If we grow less food, it's going to cost more for everybody in this country. It's a simple economic reality that this government does not seem to understand. They don't understand simple economics. You reduce the supply of something, you increase its price. We've heard that directly. Liberal and National senators, including myself, travelled through the Murray-Darling in recent months. The government hasn't done that. The Senate didn't do that. We had a committee looking into this bill. This bill was referred to a Senate committee. That committee refused to hold hearings in the actual Murray-Darling. They hold hearings here in Canberra, and notionally, this is in the Murray-Darling, but, of course, this town is not where the food is grown. They use a bit of water here and build dams for their own purposes, but they do not produce our food. The Labor and Greens senators refused to go to the communities and towns that grow our food and supply everything in our shops, as I said, 40 per cent, almost all of our food. Especially in southern Australia, almost all of our food comes from this area. The reason they didn't go is that they didn't want to hear the cold, hard truth that this bill, this proposal between the Labor Party and the Greens, will increase the price of your shopping trollies even more. That is the cold, hard truth of this bill. We heard that ourselves when we went, so we decided to establish our own committee. We established our own extra parliamentary committee. We didn't have the resources of the parliament. We didn't have big budgets. We teamed up as a group of senators from both the Liberal and National parties. We travelled to Shepparton, Mildura, Renmark, Griffith and Moree—all proud, beautiful farming towns that grow our nation's food. Many of us would know these towns because these towns are actually in your shops. That's one thing that struck me as I was driving around the region with my colleagues. When you see SPC at your shops, some people probably don't realise that that's Shepparton Preserving Company. That's Shepparton on your shelves in your shopping centre. Mildura is also known as the Sunraysia region. You can get Sunraysia dried fruits from that region. I think Berri is defunct. Berri fruit juices is no longer around, unfortunately. Berri fruit juices used to be from the Berri and Renmark region in South Australia. All of these places are effectively wrapped up with our nation's history and heritage, which this government is destroying, effectively, through its policies in league with the Greens. When we went Shepparton, we went to the SPC factory. We heard from lots of local businesses and farmers in the region, and heard from the CEO of SPC. As I said, they make all that preserved, tinned fruit in your shops. They've got some beautiful new drinks hitting the shops as well. He very clearly said to us that, if you cut the amount of water supplied in the Shepparton region, that will reduce the amount of peaches and fruit, which he needs to run his factory. It will increase input costs for people. He will have to pass those input costs on. SPC nearly went broke a few years ago. They're not made of money. It's tough being in the food supply business, facing competition from overseas and the pressures put on by Coles and Woolworths. It's a very tough business. They will have to increase their prices. I want to be clear and outline why this bill will increase those input costs for farmers. At a broad level: if you reduce supply, you increase the costs. I want to go through in detail how that happens, because I don't think the government quite understand that. The Greens either wilfully ignore it or don't understand it. They don't go there and don't hear from farmers about how the system works. These areas like Shepparton, when they grow food, don't work like individual businesses. There are no farmers who are an island in this area. They are all connected through the irrigation network. These irrigation networks were built, sometimes, over 100 years ago. They were planned by people with great vision. A lot of these areas were deserts before they put these irrigation channels in—that's definitely true for Griffith. There was not much there before very visionary Australian men and women, sometimes around 100 years ago, carved out these irrigation channels and built dams so they could grow food and make these beautiful communities and farms in these areas. When they did that, they planned out this system so they could minimise costs. It costs money to send water from a dam or water storage down a channel. You have to upkeep the channels and invest in them every year to make sure they still work. Monitoring and metering cost money. When the government come along with this bill, what they're going to do is say to Joe Bloggs on his farm in, say, the Murrumbidgee irrigation area, 'We want to pay you'—taxpayers' money, not their money; your money—'to stop using water.' That farm shuts down. That farmer normally does pretty well. The farmer gets a pretty good price because the government's not negotiating with its money—it's using your money—so it tends to overpay for the water. The farmer does well. They can go and buy another farm, retire or do whatever they like; it's happy days. But what happens to the rest of farmers who are stuck there? That irrigation network is now like Swiss cheese. The irrigation network has a hole in it. Water passes that farm, but the farmer is not there to contribute to the costs of upkeeping that irrigation network that was planned and run to minimise costs. When the government pock marks an irrigation network by buying out farms in an uncoordinated fashion, which they also did last time they were in government, it completely destroys the economics of these irrigation communities. The average costs for the remaining farmers all go up because now there are fewer farmers to maintain, effectively, the same network. The bulk water infrastructure also has to be paid for by fewer farmers—that's a given. Suddenly the costs for everybody go up. When the cost of everything goes up, the price of that food has to go up. Then it goes up at the factory, at SPC. Then the price will have to go up again in your shops. That's what this policy does. I haven't been able to be here for all of the other contributions, but I doubt anyone on the other side is responding to this point, like the minister could do in the summing up. What have they done? Have they done any planning here to assess how buying back more water will increase costs? We haven't seen it. They haven't published any modelling that I've seen about how this will impact on the costs of farmers and therefore the cost of food in the shops for everyday Australians. There's been no analysis of this at all. And, before I move on, keep in mind just one other factor: when there are fewer farmers in a district—though, as I say, the people who sell the water do pretty well—it's not just the other farmers that are left to picked up the can; it's the whole community. With fewer farmers, you get less contracting business, fewer fencing contractors, fewer dozer drivers and fewer people to laser-level land. That then has a flow-on effect to people's shops, and the community and cafes and hotels. If you want a real-world experience of this, go to Dirranbandi or to Collarenebri. When this government was last in power, it bought up enormous amounts of water around these towns—some of the most disadvantaged towns in our region. Both those towns have very high Indigenous populations. And the government just came in and destroyed those towns. They are shadows of their former selves, because of the uncoordinated, ill-thought-through and, I would say, careless approach to water recovery that the former Labor government had. And now we're up to the sequel, with the Labor and Greens back in power, back in charge, destroying our proud competitive farming economy across Australia. The other aspect you would have heard about, I'm sure, from the other side, is that they are all doing this because they care about the environment. If pressed, they would say, 'Unfortunately, there are costs on farms, but we have to do this for a healthy river; we have to do this to increase water flows down the river.' They have these very vague goals of water recovery. You'll hear numbers like 450 gigalitres and 3,250 gigalitres—they have probably come up in this debate. Even they don't know what those numbers mean; no-one really does. They're just numbers on a page. They don't actually translate to real environmental outcomes, for two reasons. First, anyone who knows the Murray-Darling properly knows it is not a series of interconnected garden hoses. Down here, in this building, so many people seem to think that, if you just put water in at one end, then down the other end the water comes out. Some people even think you can put water in up in Queensland, up in Toowoomba, and it will come out in Adelaide and supply them with water. It doesn't work like that. The Murray-Darling Basin, as many people have told me before, is like a big old carpet—like this carpet that's in front of us here in the Senate. It's dry, usually, and it's quite flat in most parts, like most of Australia. So, if you tip water on that corner of the carpet over there, it's not going to flow down to that other corner. It doesn't flow down, because this carpet is all dry and it soaks it up, just like Australia—just like the Murray-Darling! The only way you'd get water from one corner to another corner, across the Senate, would be if the whole thing were flooded—if you had so much water that basically it was above the carpet and it just flowed. That does happen from time to time: sometimes we get massive floods, and we do have that connectivity, but that is a very, very rare circumstance; it doesn't normally happen. Normally, there are a whole lot of what are called constraints in the system. There's the Barmah Choke, through which you can usually only get 10,000 megs per day. But this government, in the way it's going to approach water management, is just going to flood everything; it's going to put water through everything, and that will be a disaster. On our tour we heard about areas that have been environmentally damaged by too much watering. You might think that's somewhat counterintuitive, but think of your own garden. If you put too much water on some plants, they die. Different plants need different amounts of water. And—surprise, surprise—the native plants in Australia typically can be hurt by too much water because they've adapted and evolved to live in what is often a very, very dry continent for large numbers of years. But when this environmental water manager comes along and this government buys back water and just lets the water flow through, areas like the Barmah-Millewa Forest will get too much water and you won't get big enough trees growing because they're flooded too often. Then, when the dry does come—eventually it will come, and even the environmental water manager won't have enough water—those trees will die because they won't have been allowed to grow big enough individually to survive the dry times. They're running an unnatural system. They're not converting it back to the pre-Captain-Cook era. They're running it based on what bureaucrats see and do here in Canberra. And it's an absolute disaster. Nothing in this bill deals with that issue of the constraints in the system. If you were serious about protecting the environment, you'd fix those first. That is what could help make the effect of the water that's been already recovered do better. The other reason we don't need to buy back water is that we could actually invest in ways that recover water for the environment and maintain food production on people's farms—we can, and that is what the coalition was doing. We can invest in ways that farmers themselves can be more efficient with their water use, like laser-levelling fields and lining channels—lots of different techniques. We can do that. They all cost money, but if the government decides that, as a society-wide objective, we should spend a lot of money to save water, farmers are ready to help do that. They possibly can't afford to do that on their own, from an individual commercial perspective, because they have to run their businesses for a profit, but if there is a broader societal benefit that the government can contribute to, there are lots of ways to save water so we could have more water for the environment. We could protect frogs, wetlands and birds and supply water down to Adelaide while maintaining our fruit production and keeping people's grocery bills down. Why won't the government do that? Why won't it adopt policies that will help people with the cost of living? This government is so out of touch. It is doing nothing to help people pay their bills. In fact, when people in this country are screaming out, 'Help me stay above water,' it has come into the Senate today and is passing a bill, in league with the Greens, to reduce food supply and push people's grocery bills up. What is going on with this government? It's like it is living in a different environment—'I just got here!'—and a completely different universe. Everyone is talking to me about their bills, and this government is just doing deals with the Greens. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's why people have had enough of this government. 13:26 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I also rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. I agree with some of Senator Canavan's remarks about our ability to do more to enable our environment to recover and thrive with the rivers flowing, but this bill doesn't quite do that. I've had a very good interaction with the office of the Minister for the Environment and Water, Ms Plibersek, to try and find ways to improve this bill. There are many ways in which this bill could be improved, and I think we've been able to achieve some of them. Hopefully, we can get further on that, but given the time frame that this bill has in which to pass and its limitations, there is only so much that can be done in this round, but it doesn't mean that the bill can't be improved further. The ability that I now have as an Independent senator to focus on improving legislation and to look at policy and improve it, rather than simply focus on the politics, is an incredibly liberating path to take and one I am enjoying thoroughly. I'm also enjoying the intellectual rigour that I get to bring to policy. Rather than being hamstrung by the politics of it—by the partyroom agenda and by those words only given to you by leadership—I can now take legislation and policy and debate and improve it as well as I can for the people of Victoria and, indeed, for all Australians. Hopefully, that is what I have been able to do with this bill. As we know, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was implemented in 2008 and then renegotiated in 2011, so this is old policy. It is old legislation. While the government has done what it can to improve it somewhat, it's basically the same old policy. When I sat down to take a look at this legislation, my priority was to ask how it could be improved, and improved not just for farmers, although they are incredibly important—they've been great to me on how they've engaged with me about what this will do—but for the communities who will be affected by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. There is lots in this bill that can be improved and in many different ways that will modernise what is basically a constrained network, like our gas market and our electricity market. This is just a market with constraints. Buybacks themselves are only one financial instrument that is being used here. Where I think I've been able to get this bill and have been working to get this bill is to look at a range of different financial instruments that allow the Commonwealth to get the water it needs for the environmental needs of the rivers. Those needs are large. The Darling is choking and the Murray is drowning. These can't just be let to lie, and this can't be allowed to happen just based off one bit of legislation. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to be able to fix both these river systems. And fix them we must. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Van, you'll be in continuation. I shall now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 32 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Fishing Industry 32 13:30 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The prosperity, finances, jobs and food security of Australians are under attack from a government which has proven it will stop at nothing to impose an antifarming agenda. I never thought I'd see a time when the food sector that has underpinned Australia for centuries would come under such concerted and ideology-driven assaults by its own Australian government. Primary production on the land and sea, forestry and mining are groaning under the weight of harsh, unnecessary and unscientific regulation that is pushing participants to the wall and reducing food production. In turn, that pain is passed onto consumers, as we all struggle with double-digit price rises for nearly everything we need. Access to well-priced Australian-grown food is an option that Australians will lose under this latest net-fishing regulation. One of these anti-Australian Labor brain explosions is the banning of net fishing in North Queensland. It's a subject I've raised repeatedly here and in the media because Labor is crucifying an industry that is unworthy of such treatment. The latest nail being hammered in by Queensland Labor involves mandatory cameras and inspectors on fishing boats. Hardened criminal have less scrutiny placed on them, but this is the result when you have activists dictating policy. Just at the weekend I spoke to multigenerational net-fishing families in Tully, in North Queensland. They take great care to place their nets away from where non-target species move. They're highly regulated with GPS and logbooks. But, thanks to Labor, one family's 14-year-old son is being denied his dream to follow in his father's and grandfather's footsteps and supply fish to those who cannot catch their own. The demise of commercial fishing in North Queensland will be to Queensland's and federal Labor's eternal shame. Labor Government 32 13:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, just says no to everything and goes down the political path of fear and division because it's all he knows. The Albanese government is getting on with historic reforms to make our country fairer and stronger. These reforms include wage increases for people on the minimum wage and aged care workers; tripling the bulk-billing incentives to save people money when they visit their GP; the opening of Medicare urgent care clinics; cheaper medicines and 60-day dispensing; childcare reform, saving Tasmanian families $2,000 a year; energy bill relief and the transition to investment in renewable energy; fee-free TAFE; a commitment to build 30,000 social and affordable homes; greater investment in Australian manufacturing; the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission; fairer paid parental leave; and aged-care reforms which are bringing dignity back into the aged-care sector. Unfortunately, we expect that, as usual, Mr Dutton and the opposition will come to Canberra with one word—no—and one setting: anger. That is to be expected. We know the calibre of Mr Dutton. He's the man who vilifies the most marginalised in this country, the man who boycotted the apology to the stolen generation, the man who said his Labor opponent was using her disability as an excuse and the man who joked about sea-level rises in the Pacific. This is the opposition leader. As a government we are working responsibly to take pressure off families and to deliver better wages and conditions for working Australians. The opposition offer nothing positive, just delay and division, which is sad because the Australian people deserve so much better from the opposition. Schools 32 13:34 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland The cost of living is accelerating across Australia, and we need serious action to directly provide support to people and families, instead of heaping billions on private corporations. Serious action includes funding our public schools. The vast majority of public schools in this country are desperately underfunded. More students are disengaging, and performance is dropping. When the Labor government continues to underfund public schools, it is the parents, families and teachers who are left to pay the difference. Unable to access a fully funded public school—there are only 1.3 per cent of those in the country—more and more people are forced to fork out for entry to a private school. If they do stick with their local public school, they end up covering the cost of funding shortfalls. My comrade in Queensland, Amy MacMahon, found families were paying on average between $1,500 and $2,000 to send their kids to state schools, paying for things like classroom stationery, course supplies, excursions and technology. This is putting real pressure on families. A public school should not be something you're forced to budget for. Overworked teachers are often forced to pay for basic educational resources their schools can't afford, and they're leaving in droves. The Australian Education Union found that, on average, teachers are spending $159 million per year out of their own pockets to pay for classroom supplies. Public schools must be truly free and this starts by immediately fully funding all public schools across the country. Bowen Community Technology Centre 33 13:36 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Last week I had the great opportunity to travel around the seat of Calare with the member for Maranoa, David Littleproud. I saw lots of interesting things. We went to the small arms factory at Lithgow, saw a great engineering factory out at Blaney, and had a meeting with the anti-windfarm protesters in Oberon. Something that wasn't a headline event in my mind at the time, something that was recommended by members at a grassroots level, really struck me. I went to the Bowen Community Technology Centre. I didn't know what it was. Paul Townsend—if you are out there—thank you for all you do. It was a small room on the side of the community hall. I went there to listen to their story. This place makes computers available for the really socioeconomically diverse and for the poorest people in the region around Orange. They do resumes, computer skills and educational programs for those who don't fit into the school system—Indigenous, non-Indigenous. They are world famous for their finder words and for the chocolate rewards afterwards. I saw the stars on the board and I walked in. What struck me was the story they told. They're funded for some of the equipment they have—computers, those sorts of things and some infrastructure—but had no ongoing funding whatsoever, to the point where Paula—who, let's not be ageist but is closer to retirement than career starting—is looking at going back to work as a nurse to self-fund this place. It requires $50,000 a year and it is just not there. It got through on some funding from my good friend Ben Franklin—now president of the upper house—when he was a minister in New South Wales. But we need to keep the funding going because it stops the problems of people hitting the streets and doing the wrong thing. I have written to Dr Anne Aly and I'm writing to Linda Burney for $50,000 a year to keep people off the street and in jobs. I urge the government to have a look at this thing because it is people making a difference. (Time expired) Retail Workers 33 13:38 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Well, the only thing which won't cost any of us a cent at the shops this Christmas is treating retail workers and fast food workers with respect. It costs absolutely nothing to be kind, but we know too many of Australia's retail and fast food workers are absolutely copping it at work. A national survey by the SDA of over 4,600 retail and fast food workers has shown in the past year 87 per cent of workers have experienced verbal abuse and 12½ per cent have experienced physical violence from customers. It is young women who are subjected to this treatment the most, with over 90 per cent of 18-to-35-year-old women surveyed reporting they have experienced verbal abuse. The survey found that across retail and fast food, the major causes of abuse were inadequate staffing levels, customer wait times, theft and being required to enforce store protocols. Throughout this survey we heard cases of workers being choked or punched, attempted assaults in the workplace, workers being called names, workers being shoved, workers leaving their workplaces in tears, shaken and scarred because of the abuse they had experienced, all in the name of doing their jobs. It is not acceptable. As we head into the Christmas period with all the joy and the rest that brings for many of us, but where stress and tension can run high too, if we don't call it out, it will just get worse. I stand with the SDA in doing just that. Our retail and fast-food workers are essential workers. They deserve our respect. There is absolutely no place for the abuse or harassment of retail workers. No-one deserves a serve. As we head into the shops this Christmas season we must remember that kindness costs absolutely nothing. Prime Minister 33 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community I started this week with my usual check to see if the Prime Minister is in the country today. He is. Hitting 'home' on his GPS still brings him back to Australia. What a memory that device has. Prime Minister Albanese clearly doesn't suffer from airsickness, yet he has managed a medical first—spreading airsickness to the rest of the country. We are all thoroughly sick of his air travel. The Prime Minister doesn't get that and with every flight he is crashing the government's poll numbers. It's why the internet has unkindly, though accurately, given the Prime Minister's plane the new name—'Air Albatross'. Leaders lead from the front, not from 30,000 feet. Australia needs leadership. Inflation can no longer be blamed on world events beyond our control. All along our inflation has been and is homegrown—demand driven from this government's record new arrivals. There was a time when Australia could have ramped up manufacturing and agriculture to meet demand from the 2.2 million new long-stay arrivals in just the last 12 months, but not anymore. The Hawke-Keating Labor government and the Howard Liberal government sent manufacturing to China. Now we're at the mercy of the Chinese and world markets to source goods, including building materials, to meet the needs of new arrivals. Minister Plibersek is deliberately nobbling agricultural expansion, with another bill in the Senate today to take away farmers' ability to grow food and fibre for new arrivals. Per capita income has gone backward faster than in any other developed nation in the world, as national wealth is spread across more and more people. A looming federal deficit will force interest rates up and steal even more wealth and opportunity from everyday Australians. Prime Minister, stop dodging responsibility, hang up your Biggles hat, get to work and clean up your mess. Economy 34 13:42 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia The Labor government have no clue how to manage the economy. In fact, they keep acting like they are still in opposition, seeking to blame everyone in the room and taking no responsibility themselves. Let's have a look at some of the most recent data that has come out about the state of the Australian economy. The latest ABS statistics show that real household disposable income suffered its largest annual decline last financial year—a decline of 5.1 per cent. That is Australians becoming worse off under this Labor government. Based on the OECD data, Australian households suffered the largest income collapse in the world in the last financial year. In Bloomberg we see reports showing that Australia has the lowest rental availability amongst peer nations at a time when this Labor government has cranked up immigration to over 600,000 people in the last financial year. So there's a massive rental crisis and the highest inflation and the highest immigration ever. The Economist this month ranked Australia the No. 1 nation in the world for entrenched inflation—two budgets in. So much for having a plan to tackle the cost-of-living crisis and so much for having a plan to tackle the inflation crisis that's smashing Australian families and smashing Australian small business. Shame on this Labor government. Insurance Industry 34 13:44 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to make a contribution and put on the record something important that happened here in the chamber today. I know you, Acting Deputy President Walsh, have had great interest in this matter as well, which is the use of genetic testing results in the life insurance and underwriting sector. Importantly, today a consultation paper was released by Minister Stephen Jones for further consultation with the Australian people about how these genetic tests are actually being used and the intersection with people's access to the critical commodity of life insurance. I also want to congratulate my former colleagues who, in 2018, were with me on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and delivered this report, Life insurance industry, of March 2018.In chapter 9, we made four critical recommendations. One of those was to engage in not only adoption of a moratorium, to make sure people could get life insurance and still get genetic testing, but also to continue to watch the developments in genetic testing and see whether legislation might be necessary. The colleagues who were with me on that journey were Mr Steve Irons, Ms Terri Butler, Mr Jason Falinski, Senator Jane Hume, Mr Matt Keogh, Senator Chris Ketter, Mr Bert van Manen, and Senators Peter Whish-Wilson, John Williams and Nick Xenophon. That good work that we did has now come to fruition, and it is vital that Australians who want to be part of testing, who want to be part of understanding genetics, who want access to services and who want the prevention that comes with proper testing, may have their say between now and the end of January about what we actually do. It's your family, it's my family—it's everyone that we care about who benefits from proper genetic testing. It's time for us to have a really close look at this and deliver the best outcome for Australia. Middle East 34 13:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Last Friday, just a few days ago, after 47 days of one of the most brutal conflicts any of us have witnessed in modern times, Israel and Hamas agreed to a four-day truce—a truce which is due to finish tomorrow. After 47 days of civilians being deliberately and disproportionately targeted by both Hamas and the Israeli governments—after 47 days of clear war crimes being committed by both Hamas and the Israeli government—we have a four-day truce. I've just come from a briefing by Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontieres and the international centre for justice, and I thank them for all the work that they have done throughout this crisis and for the information that they have provided to senators and members and staff in this building today. They are a trusted source of information, and they are on the front line. With less than 24 hours to go on this—and it isn't a ceasefire; I want to be really clear about this. It has been called that in the media. It is a tactical pause or an operational pause. It is not a ceasefire. I support their calls, and my party members in the Greens support their calls, for a sustained humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. But I also support their calls for an arms embargo on both sides of this conflict—on the Israeli government and Hamas—from all sides, and for an investigation into war crimes committed by both parties in this horrific conflict. We've got one day left to go for our government to clearly call for a ceasefire. (Time expired) Energy 35 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I often hear calls in this place by some to end the subsidies on fossil fuels. I don't disagree with ending subsidies. You know what? I support that call. But I urge those in this place to go one step further. If we're going to cut subsidies on one energy source, why not do it on all of them? So, yes, let's cut subsidies on coal and gas, and let's end the so-called renewable energy subsidies while we are at it. We're continually told that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. So let's see what the real cost of renewable energy is, rather than offering it at a subsidised price, and then let's see if the public still supports it. I suspect that, in time, the only thing renewable about renewable energy will be the cost. Let's remove the smokescreen of subsidies and let the best technology rise to the top. We're continually told that the public is on board with net zero. Well, I say: let's find out. Renewables, we're told also, are cheap, while, behind the scenes, the government is propping them up with massive taxpayer-funded subsidies like the Capacity Investment Scheme, whereby taxpayers are underwriting bad deals with an undisclosed sum of money that cannot be revealed due to secretive commercial-in-confidence contracts. We love that one—'commercial-in-confidence contracts'! Minister Bowen, whatever happened to transparency? I say that we should end the subsidies on all energy—all of it. Let the people and, most importantly, the free market choose. We have had enough of bureaucrats in Canberra and all around the country picking winners. It's time to reveal the truth. Like I said, the only thing renewable about renewable energy technology is the cost. Gender and Sexual Orientation 35 13:50 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Masculinity is under attack, and the war on men is being led by cultural Marxists, the likes of which roam this very chamber, every school, every university and every education department in the country. Strong male role models have become an endangered species. Fathers in sitcoms are depicted as immature, dumb, lazy and incompetent. Husbands in television commercials can't be trusted to organise the insurance. The cultural elites, cheering on the decline of men, are trying to erase the very fabric of our culture. But men seeking refuge still have a few sanctuaries, and last week I stepped into the safe space which is the modern barber shop. No other environment better sums up the frustration among young men than these places—three barber's chairs, three 30-something men, working hard, a pool table, a bar fridge full of beers and a PlayStation 5 hanging on the wall. The conversation drifted between the stupidity of the COVID period, the concerns about central bank digital currencies and how they just want to be left alone to work hard and spend time with their families. At one point one of the barbers even dared to point out an attractive young woman walking past. Now, that was probably microaggression, but it just seemed like a bit of harmless behaviour to me. Dismiss this as a frolic if you want, but every angry gender studies professor who thinks that they're going to crush the patriarchy has got some news coming. The alpha male lives on, and there's not a damn thing you commies can do about it except cry harder. Child Care, Early Childhood Education 35 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Universal child care will end up making things worse if things keep going the way they're going. It's hard to take away anything else from last week's Productivity Commission report. The gap between rich and poor impacts every part of the childcare sector, and it's making things worse. The poorer you are, the lower the standard and quality of your childcare options, so poor kids are being enrolled in cut-rate childcare centres. The poorest 10 per cent of families are paying more money out of their pocket than the richest 10 per cent of families. Early education is supposed to be the way to bridge the gap between rich and poor, but it's actually amplifying it. I know what it's like. I went back to work when my first child was only two weeks old. I was a single mum and I had to provide for my child and my nephew at the time. I couldn't afford child care, but I was lucky enough to have a mum, Nanny French and Aunty Elaine, who stepped in to look after him and Tyler so I could work. If I hadn't had that family network to support me, I'm not sure what I would have done. I know there are many people in the same boat who want to work but who'll have to pay through the nose for child care to do it. It's an impossible choice. As the report makes clear, Tasmanian families have less access to outside-school-hours child care than any other state in the country. We're not getting a fair shot. When we do get lucky enough to access early childhood education and care, a family in Launceston is left paying more out of pocket than a family in Brisbane. We're paying more and getting less. The market isn't going to bridge the divide. If you want universal access to early education, the government has to make it work universally—and the universe, I hate to tell you, doesn't end at Bass Strait. Occupied Palestinian Territories 36 13:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak about Palestine, by sharing some words from Palestinian Australian Dr Samah Sabawi, an award-winning playwright scholar, commentator and poet. The Australian government failed to condemn Israel, even when, in the first six weeks, almost 15,000 people were killed—over 6,000 children—and these figures are expected to go up drastically if and when Palestinians will be allowed to reach their loved ones, who remain under the rubble, and to count their dead and bury them. But, despite all of this, Palestinians still cling to hope, because it turns out the world is not as blind as most politicians would have us believe. It turns out humanity is shining gloriously from sea to sea. It turns out that the Palestinian flag has been raised higher, not only here in the settler colony but by millions across the globe. It turns out that our message of justice and freedom resonated from Mexico to Cairo and from New York to every major city. It turns out that people want justice and hope. It turns out that when you silence our voices, our message is amplified by millions. It is sung in sports auditoriums, chanted in rallies and shouted in the halls of power. It turns out that we, the people, have the power, and this is the most precious light we need to hold on to. There is nothing more moral than resistance to evil and genocide. We have resisted for 75 years and we are not stopping now. Free Palestine. Western Australia: Infrastructure 36 13:55 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise today to lay the foundations for the case for a very important infrastructure project for Perth's southern metropolitan region, the Shelley Bridge widening project. Many of you would have heard about Western Australia's Roe 8 and Roe 9 project, which was abandoned by the state government and, indeed, by this federal Labor government. It remains an important project that needs to be completed. With them abandoning this project, alternative solutions to alleviate traffic congestion must be found. One of these projects is the Shelley Bridge widening. The two-lane Shelley Bridge crosses the Canning River, linking with the three-lane Leach Highway, and it provides carriage to thousands of cars and trucks every day. It's an incredible bottleneck, as people have to merge on either side of the bridge to get across it. This is particularly so for those trying to traverse that area through peak hour. This situation is made worse because of the absence of Roe 8 and 9, and I think it's a project that needs to be looked at. It causes rat-running in the surrounding areas; people seek other routes to get around and bypass that area of congestion, so it presents significant community hazards every time people have to travel through that area. I believe the Shelley Bridge widening project would serve the community well and improve connectivity for Perth residents, particularly those in that southern area. My team and I will be contacting residents throughout that area, asking them whether or not they think this project should go ahead. There certainly needs to be some planning, that's for sure. I look forward to working with the cities of Canning and Melville to highlight the need for the delivery of this project, which was included in the City of Canning's 2022-2023 advocacy projects. Workplace Relations 36 13:57 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Hundreds of trucks, good employers and industry transport groups took part in convoys across the country on Saturday, including on the lawns outside this building, urging this chamber to urgently pass the closing the loopholes bill. This year there have already been 210 everyday Australians killed in truck crashes. Every month, 55 transport businesses collapse and, thanks to the Liberal and Nationals, these urgent life-saving reforms will be delayed by months. That means more insolvencies, more exploitation and more sweatshops on wheels. These reforms are widely supported by every major transport industry stakeholder. There is nothing contentious about them, but the Christmas message from Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, to Australians in the road transport industry, is, 'You're getting paid too much.' He says that you have it too good. The Liberals and Nationals' Christmas present to Australian workers is a middle-finger salute: no minimum standard for transport gig workers being paid as little as $6 an hour; no permanent jobs for casuals; no same job, same pay for labour hire workers; no fair playing field for good employers; no job security; and no wage rises for anyone is the Liberals and Nationals' economic plan. People are sick and tired of Mr Dutton always standing behind big business and never standing up for workers or hardworking small business. In fact, where was Mr Dutton last week? He was at a party hosted by the richest person in Australia, Gina Rinehart, because that's who he represents. According to media reports, Mr Dutton sat by the billionaire's hand for the evening and enjoyed smoked wagyu brisket and ribs whilst half-naked acrobats spun around. It sounds like a lovely evening for Dutton and his billionaire paymasters— (Time expired) Housing 37 13:59 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia We have a government that is completely asleep at the wheel: 1,700 construction businesses have entered administration in the last 12 months! This is a government that's pretends it has a housing policy— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Brockman. The time for senators' statements has expired. MINISTRY 37 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 37 14:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I advise the chamber that Minister Wong is away for personal reasons. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 37 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE International Relations: Australia and China 37 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia President, my question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. On 18 November, the defence minister released a statement regarding a 14 November incident in which a Chinese People's Liberation Army naval vessel engaged in actions that injured Australian defence personnel from the HMAS Toowoomba whilst it was operating in international waters—indeed, in waters within the Japanese economic zone. On what date was the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, informed of the Chinese People's Liberation Army naval vessel's actions? 14:01 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Birmingham, for that question. I am aware of the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of the events in relation to HMAS Toowoomba. I am not aware of the date that the Prime Minister was advised about the matter. I'm assuming—I'm trying to think back over the period of time—it would have been when he was at the APEC meeting in the United States, which I also attended. But I would have to seek some advice on that, Senator Birmingham, and come back to you with a response. As you say, the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement. He did express the Australian government's serious concerns to the Chinese government following what we believe to be an unsafe and unprofessional interaction with the People's Liberation Army destroyer. That was on 14 November 2023. HMAS Toowoomba was in international waters, inside Japan's exclusive economic zone en route to commence a scheduled port visit. But as to the specifics of your question, I would have to seek further advice on that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary. 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Farrell for taking that on notice. On 18 November, the Prime Minister confirmed publicly in a press conference that he had met with President Xi Jinping at the APEC summit and that the discussions at the APEC summit had included topics such as the relationship between the two countries, trade sanctions imposed by China and a potential visit next year by Chinese Premier Li to Australia. Given the Prime Minister's willingness to identify these topics of discussion, did the Prime Minister raise with President Xi Australia's concerns about the actions of the Chinese naval vessel? (Time expired) 14:03 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Birmingham for his first supplementary question. In his original question he referred to the very clear statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister about what he had said in respect of this particular event. My understanding is that the Australian government raised this issue and our concerns about the unsafe and unprofessional interaction with the People's Liberation Army through all of the appropriate channels. I think the Prime Minister himself has made it clear that there were no formal bilaterals with President Xi. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, why won't Mr Albanese or the government be transparent with the Australian people about the Prime Minister's handling of this matter, his failure to confirm whether or not he personally stood up for Australia's interests and confirm whether or not he did so? Mr Albanese was happy to list a number of topics he discussed with President Xi. Why won't he be upfront about whether or not he raised this one? Is it simply because he did not raise it? 14:05 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Birmingham, for your second supplementary question. Senator Polley e5x I don't think we'll take advice from you. Senator FARRELL I0N I'll pick up Senator Polley's interjection. We're not going to take advice from the opposition about either transparency or how we deal with foreign governments. You've only got to look at the absolute mess that our foreign policy was left in after the years of the Morrison government. The truth of this matter is that we have raised our concerns, starting with the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister about what happened at this event. We've raised our concerns through every channel that is appropriate in these circumstances. National Security 38 14:06 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Given that the High Court struck down the Leader of the Opposition's citizenship cessation laws, which he was warned repeatedly were bad law, how is the Albanese Labor government fixing the national security mess left by Mr Dutton? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I'm waiting for order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, when I call for order it includes you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston twice! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I am waiting for order! 14:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's time for a few home truths when it comes to home affairs, Senator O'Neill, so I thank you for your question. Today, the Albanese government has flagged its intention to introduce legislation that will enable Australian citizenship to be stripped from individuals who pose a real and immediate risk to our community. The Senate will be aware that this is not the first time such a scheme has been brought before this parliament. In fact, those opposite had two attempts at it—in 2015 and 2019. The laws they introduced in 2015 were so unworkable that they had to repeal them. The second attempt was even worse, being ruled unconstitutional by the High Court this year. Who were the architects of these ill-devised laws? They were none other than the person who they never mention—Mr Scott Morrison—and the person who's out there lecturing us day after day, Mr Peter Dutton. What a complete mess Mr Dutton left the Home Affairs portfolio in. Report after— Opposition senators interjecting — Senator WATT 245759 They don't like it! Let me remind you. Report after report found gaping holes— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Order! Senator McKenzie 207825 'The votes are back in town!' The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, will we just wait for you to come to order after I've called it? Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 They just don't like hearing the truth, do they? Report after report found gaping holes in Mr Dutton's rorted visa system, which was letting criminals into the country. It was a visa system that allowed foreign organised-crime syndicates into the country. These included the Albanian mafia, who engaged in drug trafficking, money laundering, slavery and sexual exploitation. Who was the minister the whole time that was happening? It was Mr Dutton. What did he do in the wake of all these reports? He cut compliance officers by 50 per cent. That was his solution—reducing compliance, not increasing it. There was a visa backlog of one million applications. Who was the minister who let that happen? It was Mr Dutton. For all his tough talk on boat arrivals, what happened when Mr Dutton was in charge? In 2018, a boat ran aground in Far North Queensland carrying 15 asylum seekers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, a first supplementary? 14:09 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales How is the Albanese Labor government's constitutionally sound approach to citizenship laws keeping Australians safe and secure? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll wait for silence. Minister Watt. 14:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator O'Neill, isn't it interesting that, when you talk about making laws that are constitutional, what we hear from the other side is laughter? That is the problem that existed under Mr Dutton. The entire time they were in government, they laughed at the notion that laws needed to be constitutional. They were full of tough talk but never tough laws that would actually stand up to scrutiny. Unlike those opposite, our primary focus is the real safety of Australians. We listen to our law enforcement agencies and to legal advice. We don't laugh at it, like all of those opposite. We follow through with actions; we don't just talk tough. That's what you're seeing today: we're flagging important legislation to strengthen our national security. We're a government that is providing $255 million in additional support to our agencies—a government doing its job to keep Australians safe. One of the lessons that those opposite refused to learn in government was that unconstitutional laws don't make anyone safer. Tough talk doesn't make Australians safer. Strong laws do, and that's what we're delivering, rather than just tough talk. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary? 14:11 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you very much for that comprehensive response, Minister. Can the minister advise the Senate on some of the current risks for important community cohesion and national security? 14:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator O'Neill, for the question. It seems that, currently, the biggest risk for community cohesion in Australia is the Liberal Party and Mr Peter Dutton. Every day we see this opposition led by Mr Dutton obsessed with ratcheting up division and anxiety in our community. Last week, one of his minions, Senator Paterson, was right in line, saluting and doing his job, rushing onto television and declaring a terrorist attack on the Canada-US border that didn't actually happen and wasn't a terrorist attack at all. He declared it a terrorist attack before the investigation had even established what had happened. It shows how desperate the Liberal Party is, under Mr Dutton, to ratchet up division and anxiety in our community that they would run out there at the drop of a hat declaring terrorist attacks that haven't actually happened and haven't been checked at all. Senator Paterson made these claims while, at the same time, raising questions about a visa process for those who are fleeing war zones which is exactly the same process as it was under the government he was a part of. We need to bring people together, not divide them. (Time expired.) National Security 39 14:12 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Will the minister confirm whether media reports are accurate that a boat containing illegal maritime arrivals arrived last week in Western Australia and that its passengers were subsequently flown to Nauru? 14:12 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Paterson for his question. As he would be well and truly aware from his time in the former government, we don't make comments about these operational matters. Obviously there have been media reports about the issues, but, as a matter of practice, we don't make comments about these matters, and we're not about to start now, Senator Paterson. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, a first supplementary? 14:13 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Will the minister confirm that this is the 10th attempted illegal venture bound for Australia since the Albanese government was elected in May 2022? 14:13 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Paterson for his first supplementary question. I can only repeat what I said in answer to the earlier question. It has long been the practice—of your government, when it was handling these issues, and of this government—that we don't— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson Senator Paterson 144138 On direct relevance—Border Force officials do routinely confirm the number of attempted arrivals at Senate estimates. Why can't you? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, that's not a point of order. Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I can only say the same thing I said in the first answer, Senator Paterson: we don't comment on these operational matters. Where we do differ from what the previous government did is that we don't seek to politicise national security issues. We are the adults in the room. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, resume your seat. Senator Paterson, a second supplementary? 14:15 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Since coming to government, Labor has cut $600 million from our border protection regime and flagged its intention to abolish temporary protection visas. Will the government commit to restoring Operation Sovereign Borders in full before we see a return of the tragic loss of life at sea that we saw under the previous Labor government? 14:15 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Paterson for his second supplementary question. What I can say in answer to your question, Senator Paterson, is that the government remains and has always remained absolutely committed to the policies that underpin Operation Sovereign Borders. What we won't do is seek to do what you did, which was politicise these issues. We are going to handle these issues in a sensible and mature way. We're going to make sure that our borders continue to be protected. The Australian people can be very confident, under the Albanese government, that we will continue to protect our borders. Immigration Detention 40 14:16 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. Minister, the government's just tabled in the House the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Isn't it the case that the fact that you are having to, this week, rush through an antirefugee bill to fix up the previous antirefugee bill you rushed through in the last sitting week clearly demonstrates that you've been panicked by Mr Dutton into demonising refugees and, in fact, into abandoning proper legislative process and, indeed, the entire concept of good governance? 14:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator McKim, the short answer to your question is no. Senator McKim JKM It certainly looks that way. Senator WATT 245759 You would want to characterise it however you would want to to support your extensive social media campaigns. The reality is that the government acted as quickly as possible when we last sat to pass laws so that we could put strict new conditions on the individuals concerned, including ankle bracelets. Now, as was well traversed in the last sittings, the government was faced with a situation where we had a High Court decision which overturned 20 years of precedent. The reasons for that decision were not provided and have not yet been provided. So the options we had were to do what the Greens party would have done, which is do nothing, or to legislate as best we could in the absence of those decisions. We took the latter option because we take community safety seriously. We weren't prepared to sit back and do nothing, as the Greens party would have had us do, when we were faced with a situation where, now, a relatively large number of individuals, with, in some cases, serious criminal convictions, were released into the community as a result of a High Court decision. We always said that the laws that we passed when we last sat were going to need refinement and amendment. And I dare say when we receive the High Court reasons, whenever that may be, there may need to be further amendments to ensure both the constitutionality of those laws and their full effectiveness. Senator McKim, if you want to go out to the Australian public and tell them that we don't need to worry about what is now 141 people in the community then be my guest. But we're not going to take that position, because the Albanese government does take community safety seriously, and we will do our best to make sure that the legislation we pass is effective. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, a first supplementary? 14:19 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania It's amateur hour in this parliament. Minister, why is Labor continuing to allow Mr Dutton to create a two-tiered system of justice in our country, where some refugees and stateless people have fewer rights than Australian citizens, where they are treated differently under the law, where their human rights are abrogated, and where they are subject to laws that are contrary to both the legal principle of double jeopardy and Australia's international legal obligations? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I remind you to address your answers to the chair. 14:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you for the reminder, President. Again, I reject Senator McKim's premise in this question. This came down, purely and simply, to a matter of community safety. The government takes that seriously. We welcomed the support of the opposition in passing that legislation, which was necessary to ensure that the Australian community were safe. I find it interesting that the Greens Party want to go around saying to the Australian public that we should do nothing about the fact that 141 or 142 individuals with, in some cases, serious criminal offences, should be released into the community without any form of monitoring. That's what the Greens Party would have done. That's not the Australian government's position. I don't think that's what the community would expect, either. That's why we passed that legislation and will continue to refine it to make it protect people as best we can. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, a second supplementary? 14:21 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, can you confirm that it is Australian Labor Party policy to oppose mandatory sentencing? Why did the government abjectly cave in to Mr Dutton last week and vote against Labor members' policy to oppose mandatory sentencing? Why have you continued to oppose Labor members' policy this week by introducing mandatory sentencing in your latest anti-refugee bill? 14:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland These matters were extensively covered in the debate that we had around the legislation that the Greens Party opposed when we last sat. The government makes no apologies for passing tough laws to keep the Australian community safe. It would seem the Greens Party is the only group in this parliament who doesn't think that community safety matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM A point of order on relevance: it wasn't about the Greens Party; it was actually about Labor Party policy. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant and I will listen carefully to make sure he remains relevant. Senator WATT 245759 We make no apologies for taking the Australian people's safety seriously, for legislating quickly to preserve that safety, or for undertaking a range of other measures to keep Australian people safe, including the more than $250 million that was announced today to maintain the protections required under this legislation to provide the Border Force and the Australian Federal Police with the resources they need to enforce that legislation. I'm surprised that the Greens Party thinks the Australian community's safety doesn't matter. Cost of Living 41 14:23 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese government is taking comprehensive action to tackle cost-of-living pressures. Can the minister outline how the government is working hard to get costs down for families and individuals, to get wages up for workers, and to strengthen the budget foundation to deliver tangible benefits for Australians? How is this approach helping to relieve the cost of living at time when global economic challenges persist? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the question and for her interest in addressing cost-of-living pressures for Australian households. Since we came to government, the government has been totally focused on addressing cost-of-living issues. You saw that in our election commitments, which directly went to assisting households with cost-of-living pressures. You've seen it in the way we've handled issues while we have been in government, including in providing energy bill relief—around this time last year in the final weeks of parliament—which those opposite voted against, of course. We are working hard to support families by introducing measures which bring down the cost of living, like cheaper child care and reduced medicine costs. We're seeing results, particularly in the area of medicines but also in childcare fees, which are a big part of household budgets when you have children under the age of five. When we look at reducing medicine costs, we've seen significant savings—$20 million each month—from lowering the price of monthly scripts, with that money going directly going into people's pockets. In relation to 60-day dispensing, which, again, those opposite voted against, we've already seen 600,000 scripts, saving $5 million, as a result of the changes that we have been putting in place and which you voted against. We are also seeing improved good results—and it is early days—in the increased investment that we have made to bulk-billing, which is allowing more GPs to bulk-bill more people. We've been doing this because we've been taking measures to strengthen the budget so that we can find room for these important programs that assist Australians with the increasing cost of living, and we will continue to do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, a first supplementary? 14:25 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for outlining some of the things that we're doing in response. The government is delivering significant investment in cost-of-living relief, including the $23 billion package delivered by the government. Can the minister also provide further details on how specific initiatives, like cheaper child care, are easing financial pressures on families while also delivering lasting social reform? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the question. As Senator Stewart said, our $23 billion cost-of-living package—large parts of which those opposite voted against—includes those important measures like energy bill relief, cheaper child care, the bulk-billing investments that are rolling through, cheaper medicines, 60-day dispensing, boosting income support payments, addressing some of the rental pressures with Commonwealth rent assistance, our fee-free TAFE, building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and getting wages moving again. This is all part of our agenda to ensure that Australians can keep up with those cost-of-living pressures that we're seeing. But we're also, importantly, focusing on measures that improve the productive side of the economy, like our investments into child care, which we see as a significant economic reform, and, indeed, our extension to PPL, allowing more women to work. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, a second supplementary? 14:27 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that response. Can the minister update the Senate on how the government's policies have led to wages growing at the fastest rate in a decade? How do these efforts in securing fair pay align with the Albanese government's broader economic plan? How does this further support the efforts to alleviate cost-of-living pressures facing Australians and their families? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (—) (): I thank Senator Stewart for the supplementary question. We've been focused on getting wages moving again since we came to government because we inherited an economy and policies from the former government that had low wages as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture, and we will never let you forget it. You had minimum wage submissions that had whole sections on the importance of low-wage work. This is what you were when you were in government. We have been putting in place changes. Aged-care workers are finally getting the recognition and respect they deserve, with a fully funded 15 per cent wage increase. It's highly feminised, low-paid work that had led to significant workforce issues, which led to an aged-care system which the royal commission itself characterised as a 'system of neglect'. That is what you oversaw. We have put in place measures— (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 42 14:28 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. How many vaccines are subject to an indemnity from the Australian government? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Roberts. I'll just see if I can provide you with an accurate answer. I do know that there were indemnity arrangements put in place under the former government for the vaccines that were approved then, in the early stages of the pandemic, and those indemnity arrangements continue. I think we have traversed this a bit at estimates. I'm not sure if there is anything else I can provide. Indemnity arrangements were put in place for the vaccines that the government procured to enable the national vaccine rollout program to be undertaken during the pandemic emergency. That was an important part of ensuring that we could procure the vaccine in the amount that we needed and provide it to the Australian people. I would also say that, whilst the indemnity arrangements were in place, all of the required approvals to ensure the safety of the vaccines—prior to the vaccines being rolled out—were followed, through the TGA processes, which we have also traversed at length in estimates. We also have the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme, which was established to run alongside the national rollout of the vaccine program. And I would say that it was an important response to the pandemic to ensure that we could get as many people vaccinated as possible in a safe way to ensure that we minimised the impact of significant disease and also, at the very serious end, the deaths that occurred from contracting COVID-19. 14:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Indemnities have been issued for 14 different COVID products. Each new COVID vaccine or shot has been given an indemnity, the most recent on 10 October 2023. With demand for the booster down to 5½ per cent for those under 65, and with multiple vendors, the argument that indemnities are needed to get stock is a patent nonsense. What is the real reason for these new indemnities, issued only six weeks ago? 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I can't go into the confidential agreements that have been reached in procuring vaccines. These are agreements that are reached between the government and the vaccine provider, and we do so in a way that allows for the rollout of continued vaccination and booster shots to protect people from COVID-19. These are the arrangements that were entered into during the pandemic. Those arrangements are continuing. We think there's a very important public health reason to ensure that we are procuring vaccines and making them available so people can take their booster. I would say that booster levels remain low—and we do want to see those increase—and that people should go and get their booster if they're ready for one or if they're six months past the last COVID-19 bout. 14:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, you won't explain to the taxpayers why you're using their money and putting it at risk, so I'll ask a second supplementary. This government has offered Moderna an indemnity for every vaccine or shot manufactured in its new Australian factory, currently under construction, including regular non-pandemic vaccines. Why has your government not been honest in telling taxpayers they are paying for new vaccine harm during the COVID period and for all time? 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm not sure what Senator Roberts is referring to, and I reject the claim that we are somehow using taxpayers' money and causing vaccine harm. That is not appropriate, and I absolutely categorically reject that. If there is anything further I can provide Senator Roberts around the arrangements with Moderna in particular, I am happy to arrange that. I don't have that information before me, but I do accept that governments do negotiate agreements with companies around the supply and availability of medicines—and vaccines, in this instance—to ensure that we are able to provide the medicines Australia needs and also ensure that we have enough of the vaccines to provide the appropriate coverage, particularly for COVID-19 protection. Immigration Detention 43 14:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Your government has today admitted that over 140 detainees, including paedophiles, rapists, murderers and a contract killer, have been released into the Australian community following the recent High Court decision. How many more detainees does the government expect to release before Christmas? 14:34 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cash for her question. She does correctly identify the number of people that have— Senator Cash I0M That's good to know. Thanks! Senator FARRELL I0N I'll give credit where credit's due. It's so infrequent, Senator Cash, that it's worth observing. But the government has responded very quickly to the issues that have arisen as a result of the decision of the High Court last week. We have done this in a very quick and prompt fashion. I have to— Senator Cash I0M It's a point of order in relation to relevance. The question was in relation to how many you intend in releasing in the lead-up to Christmas. The PRESIDENT 112096 And there were a few sentences before then that went to how many had been released, and that's the part the minister's responding to, but I'll continue to listen carefully. If the whole question isn't addressed, I'll draw that to the minister's attention. Senator FARRELL I0N As I said, I did acknowledge that 141 people have been released. Of course, the actions of the government in seeking to address the failures of the legislative program under the former government will hopefully lead to a situation where we can properly address this situation. We've introduced strong laws designed to protect the Australian community, and of course, as we've heard today, the minister has boosted funding for the ABF, the AFP and the CDPP to enforce these laws— Senator Cash I0M Again, it's a point of order in relation to relevance. With all due respect, over one minute and 30 seconds in, the question is: how many more does the government expect to release before Christmas? The PRESIDENT 112096 I will draw the minister to the second part of your question, Senator Cash. Senator FARRELL I0N I just don't think Senator Cash is listening to my response. What the government has done—and, to their credit, it's with the support of the opposition—is introduce laws that— (Time expired) 14:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister your government has today admitted that four detainees have refused to have tracking devices attached to them. Have any of these detainees been charged with breaching the new criminal provisions of the Migration Act? Are any of them now being held in custody? And is one detainee's whereabouts unknown to authorities? 14:37 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cash for her first supplementary question. My understanding is that the individuals that you're talking about have been referred to the police, for action to be taken by the police in respect of these matters. Had your legislation, the legislation that Mr Dutton rushed through the parliament without due consideration for the cost— Senator FARRELL I0N You of all former ministers in this place, Senator Cash, should have understood the consequences of trying to pass unconstitutional pieces of legislation which, sooner or later, the High Court was going— (Time expired) 14:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, how long before these dangerous criminals were released into the community were state governments briefed by the federal government about their imminent release? 14:39 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia (—) (): I thank Senator Cash for her second supplementary question. As I understand it, there have been regular briefings between the relevant Commonwealth bodies, whether it be Border Force or it be the Australian Federal Police, and the state and territory governments. We have ensured that they be kept up to date with any developments. I will go through some of the things that have in fact occurred. Prior to the High Court decision, senior ABF officials briefed local state and territory police counterparts on the possible implications of the case. So in the event that it was an adverse decision, they were briefed. We established an Operation Aegis in November to manage the overall response. (Time expired) Domestic and Family Violence 44 14:40 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland (—) (): My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. It's day 3 of the UN's 16 days of activism campaign for the elimination of violence against women. This year 54 women have been killed already, including six in just one week this month. It's clear we need more funding for prevention work with respectful relationships education in schools and prevention work in sporting clubs, workplaces and all areas of society. In the response space, the women's safety sector have long called for $1 billion a year in funding for frontline support services to meet demand and to ensure everyone who seeks help fleeing violence can get it. In budget estimates this year, the department confirmed the total federal funding commitment to prevent violence against women over the next five years is only $2.23 billion, less than half the $5 billion the sector needs to ensure no-one who seeks help is turned away. Why is the government not spending $1 billion a year on women escaping violence? (Time expired) 14:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Waters for the question and acknowledge her longstanding advocacy in this space around women's safety. I too would like to put on the record how devastating the loss of life in this country is every year, in particular in the last couple of months, where we have seen an increased number of women who have died at the hands of their former partner or their partner. It is a massive problem in this country. I will come to your question, but this is a national problem that requires all parts of the community and the economy to work together to get rid of the attitudes and the views that lead to this type of violence against women and children. It's not just the women who have died—although, obviously, that is devastating in itself; it's the hundreds and thousands of women and children who are hospitalised, who are homeless and who fear for their lives every day from living in such a violent arrangement. The point you raise is around the level of investment. As you say, we have allocated $2.3 billion across a range of programs to end violence against women and children under the national plan. We will always—Minister Rishworth, myself, Minister Elliott—continue to work with states and territories to identify other areas of need, and all governments are working together to look at how we can end violence against women and children. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, a first supplementary? 14:43 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland After years of the Greens and many organisations calling for a national toll of women killed by violence to be collated and publicised by government rather than simply relying on volunteer orgs to do that work, over the weekend the government announced what seems to be a version of that—a dashboard for official reporting on intimate partner homicide, which will provide quarterly updates from mid next year. How much funding has been allocated to this? Why is it only reporting quarterly? Why the seven-month delay until it starts? How will the figures be publicised to help drive change? 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'll come back if there's anything further I can provide. But you are right: this is one of the issues that the ministers for women's safety, yourself and others have been calling for because there is a range of organisations that report numbers of deaths and homicides against women, but a number use different information. Trying to get a picture of the exact information, with a definition that people agree on, has been difficult but the dashboard will be introduced as part of that. I think the time is about putting all the systems in place to ensure that the reporting, particularly from the states and territories, is accurate. It is being developed by the Australian Institute of Criminology and it will be able to provide us with more up-to-date figures, which is part of understanding the extent of the problem. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, a second supplementary. 14:45 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland We think we know that gender inequality drives domestic, family and sexual violence but, when less than two per cent of perpetrators ever have contact with the police or the criminal justice system, there's a lot more we need to understand about what drives perpetrators. We need a national prevalence study like the Perpetration Project. Will the federal government fund and commit to a repeatable national prevalence study of the perpetration of domestic, family and sexual violence? 14:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you. This is in Minister Rishworth's portfolio area, so if there's anything further I will come back on it. I know that Minister Rishworth has been looking at the issue of perpetrators and perpetrator programs. In fact, it's an important part of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. And I know that the sector itself has been very keen to see more happen in that space. I don't have anything further to add for you but, if I can, I will provide more information through Minister Rishworth. I would also say that we are working nationally to improve the information that is provided to police around the country in real time so that some of those issues about crossing jurisdictions and women's safety can be addressed. Trade 45 14:46 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Earlier this month the minister visited the United States for this year's APEC summit in San Francisco. This followed meetings in Osaka-Sakai, Japan, to attend the G7 Trade Minister's Meeting and Shanghai in China to attend the China International Import Expo. How does Australia's participation in these international meetings support the government's trade diversification strategy? 14:47 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sterle for his question. I know that he understands just how important trade is to the great state of Western Australia. The Albanese Labor government has committed to building strong economic ties with our trading partners to deliver practical outcomes for Australia's exporters and to create more well-paying jobs for Australians. That's why earlier this month the Prime Minister and I travelled to San Francisco to attend APEC meetings. APEC has long been at the forefront of pushing the trade liberalisation agenda. This year's APEC priorities included advancing the digital trade agenda; ensuring inclusivity and sustainability; and mainstream intertrade and investment policies. While in San Francisco and Shanghai, I met with the Chinese Minister of Commerce, Wang Wentao. Engagement with China has proven effective—just ask any Australian exporter of coal, cotton, copper, concentrates, timber, logs, oats, hay, barley or stone fruits. Think of all the jobs created as a result of the considered approach the Albanese government has taken to restoring market access for these products. A ministerial meeting also took place in San Francisco to advance the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework negotiations. IPEF, as it's known, is designed to promote workers' rights; to lift and align trading standards; to build supply chain resilience; and to promote clean energy investment so that trade flows more freely and more fairly in the Indo-Pacific region—our region. More trade, not less, means more well-paying jobs, more national income and, of course, more opportunities for businesses and for workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, your first supplementary. 14:49 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Can the minister briefly outline what practical benefits Australian exporters, businesses and workers can expect from Australia's participation in economic agreements like APEC and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework? 14:49 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sterle for his supplementary question. The 2023 APEC agenda and the IPEF outcomes were complementary. Both help to build a more resilient and interconnected region, promote an innovative environment for the sustainable future and strengthen an equitable and inclusive future for all. In San Francisco I was pleased to sign Australia up to the new IPEF supply chain agreement. This is a practical agreement that will help fix future supply chain crises fast, easing cost pressures on households by getting more product into the market. Prime Minister Albanese also announced the creation of an IPEF critical minerals dialogue, which will enhance Australia's role as a renewable energy superpower. Outcomes such as these will strengthen Australia's ties with our trading partners. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, second supplementary? 14:50 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Digital trade and services are an important focus of APEC and IPEF. How is the government working to attract more investment in Australia's digital and tech sector? 14:50 Senator I0N South Australia FARRELL (—) (): I thank Senator Sterle for his second supplementary question. San Francisco is the gateway to Silicon Valley, and Silicon Valley is the home of global tech innovation, including artificial intelligence. I was pleased to meet with representatives from Google, Salesforce and innovative Australian startups using satellite technology to improve winegrowing around the world. The Albanese government is actively supporting Australian innovation as well as attracting foreign investment in technology to create more well-paying jobs at home. For example, Microsoft recently announced a $5 billion investment in Australia as well as new artificial intelligence partnerships with the Digital Transformation Agency. This investment helps to support the government's commitment of creating 1.2 million tech related jobs by 2030. Economy 46 14:51 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Core inflation is higher in Australia than in six of the seven G7 countries, and last week the RBA governor said that inflation was homegrown, saying that prices are rising strongly for the majority of the goods and services that we all consume. Yet, the very next day, the Prime Minister continued to insist that inflation was coming from overseas. Who is correct: the RBA governor or the Prime Minister? 14:52 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hume for her question. Governor Bullock did make some comments last week. In particular she made it clear that inflation in this country under the policies of the Albanese Labor government is moderating, but it has been more persistent overseas, and it's expected to be more persistent here as well. In other words, she acknowledges that the inflation situation is moderating, and I'd put it to you, Senator Hume, that it's because of the policies of this government. The reality is, as Governor Bullock made clear, that inflation has been more persistent overseas, and it's expected to be more persistent here as well. There are a few parts of the inflation challenge— Senator Birmingham H6X Point of order on direct relevance: I appreciate that the minister is referencing the RBA governor's remarks in a broad sense and other parts of her remarks, but the question asked went specifically to whether or not it is homegrown inflation—that element of Governor Bullock's remarks. I ask the minister to be drawn to that element of the governor's remarks. Is it homegrown? Is the governor right, or is the Prime Minister right? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. You are correct. The Minister was referring to the first parts of that question, which he is entitled to do. I'll draw his attention to the second part of that question. I also note that interjections are disorderly, but the minister is also able to reference those. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. Governor Bullock has also said that our budget strategy is very helpful and very positive and that the ABS has shown that our cost-of-living policies have taken a half a percentage point off inflation. The government are focused on productivity-enhancing investments and supporting workforce participation so that we can grow supply and ease inflation pressures into the future. I know that the opposition don't like all of those things happening, but they're the things this government is doing—all of the things that you didn't do in government. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:55 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, is inflation now a homegrown problem? 14:55 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hume for her first supplementary question. It's fair to say that inflation peaked here lower and later than in most G7 nations, so its moderation is a bit behind. The most recent IMF World Economic Outlook stated that they expect the return to target to take until at least 2025 in most nations. Treasury expects inflation to return to target next financial year, so the return to target is expected to be in line with most other nations. Our policies— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X President, I've a point of order on direct relevance. It'd be hard for a senator to have a more tightly worded question than Senator Hume's six-word question: 'Is inflation now a homegrown problem?' Senator Farrell is going vaguely around issues of inflation in every possible way but not addressing the actual question that Senator Hume asked: 'Is it a homegrown problem?' They were the words of the RBA governor. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, as you know, I do allow the leaders some latitude, but that was verging onto a statement. Minister Farrell, I draw your attention to Senator Hume's question. Senator FARRELL I0N Look, I'm simply trying to explain that inflation has been a worldwide issue. It hasn't just been an Australian issue; it has been a worldwide issue. We are dealing with it in the absolute best way we possibly can. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:57 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Over 12.8 million Australians are more stressed about their finances this year compared to last year, an increase of 10 per cent. Of all Australians reaching out for help from charities, almost half are doing so for the first time. A submission to the cost-of-living committee said: 'I'm not buying as much fresh produce these days. Due to the cost of fuel I can't afford to spend Christmas with my family. Most of them are in regional New South Wales and I am in Rockhampton.' Is this the sort of pain for Australians that the Prime Minister meant when he said in January that his new year's resolution was to address the cost of living? 14:58 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hume for her second supplementary question. No. Aged Care 47 14:58 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. The aged-care royal commission's final report told a shocking story of neglect, inaction and a lack of ambition to plan for the growing demand in the aged-care sector. A key recommendation of the final report is that registered nurses be required on site in residential aged-care homes 24 hours a day seven days a week. The report also— Senator Davey 281697 That's why they're all shutting down. Senator POLLEY e5x I'd listen, if I were you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, just continue with the question. Senator POLLEY e5x The report also recommended the introduction of minimum care time for registered nurses, enrolled nurses and personal care workers. How is the Albanese government delivering its election commitment to put nurses back into nursing homes? 14:59 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Polley for her continued interest in this important area of service delivery and reform for the Albanese government. I acknowledge the work that Minister Wells from the other place has been doing in implementing the recommendations from the royal commission and cleaning up and improving the standard of care that's provided to our most elderly citizens. Aged-care workers care for some of our most vulnerable older Australians. They do crucial, demanding and highly skilled work every day. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety found that unacceptable staffing levels in aged-care homes had created horrific environments of substandard care caused by a lack of ambition to plan for growing demand in the sector. That's why we acted very quickly to lift the standard of care and implement the recommendations of the royal commission to make sure that aged-care residents get the clinical care they need. On average, there is now a registered nurse on site in aged care 98 per cent of the time in Australia, or 23½ hours a day. Eighty-eight per cent of all homes that reported data have a nurse 24/7, and the majority of remaining homes are extremely close to meeting that target. We're also seeing improvements in the amount of care being provided by registered nurses, enrolled nurses and personal care workers. Our data shows that older Australians are receiving an additional 1.8 million minutes of care every single day under the Albanese government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Thank you, Minister—just another mess we have to clean up. Can the minister inform the Senate how the government's work to build the aged-care workforce is helping to deliver Labor's promise to lift the standard of aged care in Australia? 15:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Our commitment to build a skilled aged-care workforce is having a real, tangible effect on the ground. In the past year, there has been a reduction in the number of pressure injuries, significant unplanned weight loss, falls and polypharmacy in the use of antipsychotics, and in the use of physical restraints in aged care. We're also seeing improvements in the star ratings data, with fewer one- and two-star ratings and more four- and five-star ratings. That's what 24/7 nursing has always been about—building trust, fewer falls, fewer injuries, fewer avoidable hospital admissions and more older people feeling safe and respected in aged care. Before the election, older Australians were scared about the prospect of going into an aged-care home, with the royal commission exposing the shocking tale of neglect that happened on the watch of those opposite. Now, in the response to the reforms of this government, trust and confidence in the sector is growing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Can the minister advise how the government is recognising the hard work of aged-care workers, who are helping the government lift the standards of aged care in this country? 15:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Polley for that supplementary—and, yes, I can. Aged-care workers for way too long were underpaid and undervalued for their crucial work. In fact they were some of the lowest paid workers in the economy. Is it any wonder that we saw people leaving the sector to find jobs elsewhere? In the May budget we funded a historic pay rise for aged-care workers—a 15 per cent increase to the award minimum—and, because of this pay rise, personal care workers are now taking home up to $7,300 more each year than they were getting under the former government. Registered nurses are taking home up to $10,000 more each year. We're seeing the difference that this is making to recruitment and retention. Data from seek.com showed a 72 per cent increase in applications per job advertisement for aged-care nursing roles from January 2023 to June 2023. Senator Farrell I0N I request that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 48 15:04 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of answers from ministers to all coalition questions today. It's an interesting thing when we're down here and looking at our responsibilities. The role of the Australian government is primarily to look after the interests and safety of Australians. Questions today went to the heart of that duty of disclosure and clarity that was promised but not delivered. We stand here on a day when people in uniform, who put their lives on the line and put themselves at risk to defend this country, have not been looked after, and where their interests, their being injured in the line of duty, are secondary to international relations, to a conversation. We do not get the time that this was disclosed to the Prime Minister. We do not get the time line at which any action was taken. We do not get clarity around this issue being raised. These are the Australians who go out there every day to defend the rest of Australia and to look after the people who are here. They deserve nothing less than to be represented at the highest levels and to have their interests put first because we know that, if trouble ever comes, these people will be put in harm's way first. So it's quite disappointing today to hear the answers: 'We haven't got the information at hand as to when the Prime Minister was informed. We won't confirm who raised these issues with the Chinese Premier.' All of these issues come to this question of disclosure, which is so core to clear government. It comes back to the issue around some of the other questions today. In regard to the boat landing, we heard the line: 'We won't comment on border matters. We don't know if it's 10 boats since this government has been in. We don't know where these people that have allegedly landed on Western Australian shores have gone. We don't know how many of them there are. We don't know if they have been caught.' Of the 131 people—I think that's the number we're up to—who have been released subject to the High Court decision, we don't know how many are missing or if they don't know their way. We don't know how many have refused to wear ankle bracelets or to be tracked. The object of our being here is to give surety to our people—the people of Australia—but it seems that, so much more often, we're putting interests over people. We're putting power over people. The doers of this world and of our country—the builders, the growers, the makers and the carers—don't deserve to know. They don't deserve to make decisions based on actual facts. In reference to the last question from the coalition about cost of living and the inflation numbers, they won't even confirm that the RBA is right when they're saying that it's now a home-grown issue—that it's not the war in Ukraine that's driving up the price of fuel and that it's not the trouble in the Middle East. When the Reserve Bank governor says that it is a home-grown issue, we don't know if that's what the government thinks, but we're heading into Christmas, and I can tell you that many Christmas trees will have fewer gifts under them this year. Some will be empty because of the cost of living in this country now. So many times we come in here and ask the questions on behalf of the Australian people: 'What are we doing to fight inflation?' On this side we know what the answers will be: 'There's $26 billion here, and there's $26 billion there. You voted against this. You voted against that.' We voted against it because we knew it wouldn't work. We voted against it because it wasn't going to make the difference. Ask mums and dads out on the streets: has it worked? It hasn't. That's the basic point: people need to be heard. They are hurting, and we are not doing enough. If we're going to go and put out a fire and someone says, 'We're going to go and pour some petrol on it,' and we vote against that, does that make us wrong when the fire goes up? No. We saw what was going to happen. This side cares. This side listens. In travelling around, I see that what government—this whole place—has got away from is the real on-the-ground issues facing mums and dads. We are working for causes. We're working for international cooperation. We're working for all these things that have the problem of hurting the Australian people. We're not giving them information to make decisions. We're compartmentalising this. In my office today, I was given a freedom of information request that contained more information than requests for papers here. This is the sort of thing that we're getting to in this place. So, when we're asking questions about national security and about where these murderers, rapists and child sex offenders are, there are no answers. When we're asking people about who is standing up for the defence contractors of Australia, there are no answers. When we're asking about what you're going to do to make the cost of living better for Australians, there are no answers, and that's because this is a government that is about posturing and not a government about people. That has to change. The scoreboard is reflecting it. 15:09 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia In taking note of answers to questions asked by coalition senators, there's a fair range of content given to us by senators opposite. In particular, there is not a clear critique of the government coming from those opposite, as is very clear in the context that the questions start with cost of living, and then one of the questions asked by those opposite is on inflation or on immigration, and so it goes on. We can highlight the fact that, as Senator Farrell outlined, we know that inflation in Australia—like in other OECD G7 countries—has been high but has peaked lower and later in Australia than in most G7 countries, so its moderation is a little behind. In the meantime, in order to abate the cost of living in Australia, we have a very clear and firm agenda which includes getting wages moving. It includes targeting relief in the health space. In particular, I had the great privilege of visiting an urgent Medicare clinic in Bunbury last Friday, which sees people able to access urgent after-hours and in-hours care when they otherwise would not be able to get access to a doctor. It's fair to say that they've already seen a great uptake of that service because people are able to get in, on demand, to see a GP for urgent care. This is highly relevant to the cost of living because the alternative was to wait weeks for an appointment to try and get in to see a doctor who may or may not bulk bill. These kinds of incentives for urgent Medicare clinics, our bulk billing incentives and our relief on the cost of medicines, are really starting to make a difference in accessing quality health care at an affordable cost. This is more and more important, given the evidence that we saw mounting of people forgoing, under the last government, access to necessary health care because of its high cost. There's no other way, really, to mitigate or address access to health care, given the disparate incomes of Australians—whether you are on social security, or on a low or high income—other than to get into the nuts and bolts of reforming our healthcare system in order to make it affordable and accessible. This means, when you're affected by the higher cost of fuel, which clearly relates to a great many international pressures which have indeed impacted on the cost of transport for households but also the costs of fruit, vegetables and other goods and services, we can mitigate household costs by targeting areas where we know we can make the most difference to the people that need it. This means we've been able to start to radically reduce health costs and indeed, in doing, also reform the health system. This means we've been able to take pressure, for example, off emergency departments, who are also experiencing increased pressures due, in part, to how unaffordable it became to see a doctor at short notice. 15:14 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales In giving some comments on this taking note session, the fundamental problem is that the distorted priorities of the government, combined with the government's inability to say no to the same distortions in its midst, mean that there has not been any capacity for the Commonwealth government to make any meaningful contribution to the battle on inflation. The battle on inflation has been fought solely by the Reserve Bank of Australia, which has ratcheted up interest rates 13 times since the election. They've been doing that in the teeth of the Commonwealth government running a fiscal policy which is fundamentally inconsistent with the approach taken by the central bank. When the Governor of the Reserve Bank was recently at Senate estimates, the question was put to the governor: is the government running a contractionary, neutral or expansionary fiscal policy? The governor said that the government was running a neutral fiscal policy, when, of course, it should be running a contractionary fiscal policy. We don't know how much longer the government will persist with this approach, but, if it does persist with this neutral approach, it guarantees that there will be more interest rate rises. The 8,000-pound gorilla in the Australian economy is the national government. Every time the Treasurer produces a budget, this Treasurer produces more spending, and that means that the interest rate pain will continue. There is the table of truth in the budget paper, which presents this in all its detail. It presents the fact that the Treasurer is spending more money and taking new decisions to spend new money, which is making a bad situation with inflation worse. The Australian people need a government that can run a contractionary fiscal stance. That is the thing that will aid the fight on inflation. If the national government can run a contractionary fiscal policy, then the Reserve Bank and the government will be in sync, and then there will be fewer interest-rate rises and there will be less pain at the kitchen table for the Australian people, who don't want to pay higher interest rates. The Australian people do not want to pay high interest rates on their houses. Prospective homebuyers can't afford to pay high interest rates. This is stopping people from getting into the housing market. Labor's stupidly high inflation and high interest rates, which the Labor Party is solely responsible for, are stopping millennials and gen Zs from getting into the housing market. That is the No. 1 priority for this government: to take inflation seriously and to slow new spending. I was reading the Canberra Times the other day, and it reliably informed me that there are 10,000 new public servants to be employed by the Commonwealth as a result of this latest budget—the biggest increase in 15 years. This is just one example of expenditure by this government that is not necessary. We don't need more bureaucrats. We don't need more people working in Canberra. This is a good example of where the government could make some cuts. It could be part of a contractionary fiscal stance. As it stands, there appear to be few solutions on the government benches. Many solutions have been developed by vested interests at the unions and the big super funds. That is basically the policy manifesto of the modern Labor Party: a bunch of vested interests and a bunch of rent-seekers. Sadly, none of these are solutions for inflation, which is the topic du jour. Therefore, I think we are stuck in this problem that the government has created for the Australian people. That's why we are flagging different options that can be deployed to address these issues, particularly in relation to housing, where we do think that there is a very important debate to be had around helping first home buyers get into the housing market but also ensuring that people who have a house can keep their house. 15:19 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to take note of answers to opposition questions in question time. First, I want to say that how we talk about issues in national security matters. How we talk about issues, particularly operational issues, matters. The way you talk about these things impacts national security. What I think we've seen this question time—indeed, consistent with what we've seen over the past few months from the opposition—is that there really is no issue in national security on which they don't seek to have a political advantage. There is no issue in national security that they don't see as an opportunity to further the ambition of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. We have seen this playbook from the opposition before. We have seen this playbook which seeks to divide our country and not to bring it together. We have seen the playbook which seeks to stoke fear, which seeks to stoke division, which seeks political advantage from issues affecting our national security and from operational issues related to our national security. We've seen it before. We've seen it when they have been in government; we are seeing it now they're in opposition. There is absolutely nothing in that kind of division and fear stoking which helps our country. That aggression, that division, that fear which the opposition strives to put into the heart of our political discourse at the moment does nothing to help our country. It does nothing to keep our country more safe. In fact, it does the opposite, because we know that breakdown in social cohesion when divisions are stoked affects our national security. Our security agencies would affirm that. The political playbook here of division, of fear, of seeking advantage and political gain from national security is abhorrent. The way we talk about things matters, and this question time is reflective of everything we've seen in the last few months on these matters. In fact, the only place the opposition's not willing to talk about national security issues, not willing to talk about the global conflicts around us, not willing to talk about all the external events facing our country at the moment is when it comes to inflation. We saw that again today. You can use these issues to stoke fear and division, but when we're talking about inflation and the biggest financial pressures facing Australian people at the moment: 'Oh, these issues don't matter. They're completely irrelevant.' It's as transparent as glass. The fact is inflation and cost-of-living pressures are huge issues in our community at the moment. No-one on this side denies that—that's why they're our No. 1 priority and focus as a government. We are investing billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief. We're deliberately doing it in a way which seeks to not add further pressures to inflation because we know acutely—we know in our communities, the people we represent, the people we talk to—that inflation most hurts those doing it tough. We are acutely aware of that. We have a 10-point plan for cost-of-living relief measures, many of which the opposition walked into this place and didn't vote for. They walked into this place and saw cost-of-living relief on the table, shook their heads and said, 'No, we don't want a part of that,' and walked back out again. And now they come in here complaining about our work as a government to take action on these issues. Electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, increasing rental assistance, income support payment increases, fee-free TAFE, building more affordable houses for people, extending paid parental leave, cheaper medicines, halving the cost of medicines for some people in this country: these are the sorts of things which those opposite can't bring themselves to support. But they are the sorts of things which make a real difference in people's lives. And we know that if we hadn't acted on these things, what is a very difficult and trying situation with inflation would be even worse. That is a fact. Cost of living is absolutely our priority as a government. It's our priority because we know it is affecting Australians right around the country, Australians who depend on their government to take these matters seriously, to prioritise them, just as they depend on us to do the same for national security—not to politicise it; not to focus on division and obstruction and dividing us, but to bring us together with actions and plans which will make a difference. 15:24 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Today we have heard confirmation from the government that the Prime Minister of this country has failed in his duty to raise in a meeting with the Chinese president a serious incident in which Australian personnel were injured. Senator Farrell was directly asked that question—'Did the Prime Minister raise it?'—by the opposition in question time today and Senator Farrell said that Australia's objections started with the Deputy Prime Minister. They started not with the Prime Minister, who had a face-to-face meeting where he could have raised it, but with the Deputy Prime Minister. And that was only once the Prime Minister had left and evaded questions. Leadership at the top of this government is completely absent, and we have seen that time and time again in recent months. That is further demonstrated by the fact as I understand it that, in the other place during question time today, the Prime Minister was directly asked this question and he still wouldn't answer it and started talking about trade with China. That is so sadly typical of this government. The Prime Minister's response to a serious naval incident in which Australian personnel were injured by the Chinese navy is to try and boast about trade and other matters. His response was, quite frankly, disgraceful. This is a serious matter which deserves a straight answer in this parliament. Let us not forget that, just two years ago, Australia was regarded as leading the world in standing up to China's coercion. Our allies were happy to say publicly and often that this was the case. At the time, the Labor Party was prepared to stand with the government and make clear that Australia was in the right in terms of the actions that we took and that it was the CCP's coercive actions that were unacceptable. Fast forward two years, and now all we hear from this Albanese government are the lines about how it was all the previous Australian government's fault. It was all the Morrison government's fault. Let's be very clear: this was the line that the Chinese government has been pushing for years. This was the reason they implemented the unlawful trade sanctions—to try and get the Australian public to blame our country for standing up for our own interests. For a long time it didn't work, but then the Prime Minister began to see a political advantage in blaming Australia for what the Chinese government had done to cut off contact and implement trade embargoes. He began to do everything he could not to stand up for Australia and our interests but to be granted a visit to China, where he could boast, as he frequently does, about stabilised relations. For many months now, the Albanese government has joined the Chinese government in publicly blaming the former Australian government for China implementing trade sanctions and refusing to take phone calls or meetings. It's an absolute shame. Question agreed to. COVID-19: Vaccination 51 15:27 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice I asked today relating to vaccine indemnities. Senator Gallagher is the Minister for Finance and is overseeing contingent liabilities in the budget. Although I prefer the words 'fake-cine' or 'injectable', what these products are not are vaccines. A vaccine prevents a person getting and transmitting an illness; these COVID 'fake-cines' do neither. Australia first provided indemnities in 2015 under the previous Liberal government for mpox and flu vaccines. Those indemnities are still in place. Now we have 14 more indemnities for COVID products, and they'll be permanent. Labor's deal to get Moderna's production plant into Australia was revealed last week. Any vaccine manufactured in Moderna's Australian factory, which is now under construction, will receive an indemnity. The agreement sets out that these vaccines will be indemnified as part of a pandemic vaccine advance-purchase agreement and additionally as part of a routine, non-pandemic vaccine supply agreement. In other words, every vaccine made will be indemnified with no word about testing. The new Moderna indemnity extends to routine vaccine supply, and the minister is not able to claim securing supply in a crisis. The World Health Organization has mentioned that there are 400 mRNA vaccines and products under development to replace conventional vaccines with expired patents. The attraction of mRNA is protecting profit from the patent cliff—not protecting better health. Those products will be for humans, livestock and pets. Our health authorities and politicians are promoting experimental mRNA products and, in so doing, risking everyday Australians' health. I was hoping to hear why in the minister's answer. Why is the government normalising indemnities, giving foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies blanket indemnities so they can avoid being accountable and encouraging companies to lie in their clinical trials, fudge efficacy data and cover up enduring death, as Pfizer was proven to have done in their COVID 'fake-cine' development? This question is not going away. We will relentlessly hound you down. Question agreed to. Immigration Detention, Domestic and Family Violence 52 15:29 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the response by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to a question asked by Senator McKim, and the response by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question asked by Senator Waters. Here we are again today, talking about rushed, slipshod, xenophobic legislation introduced to fix last week's rushed, slipshod, xenophobic legislation. The Labor Party has clearly learned nothing from last week. Last week they handed over the keys to the bus to Mr Dutton, they handed over the rego papers of the bus to Mr Dutton and they handed over the steering wheel and all of the controls of the bus to Mr Dutton. The Labor Party let Mr Dutton confect a national emergency and put pressure on them, and then we watched the Labor Party engage in a craven surrender and trample refugee rights with hasty and xenophobic legislation. Here we go again. The same thing is going to happen this week. Today proves beyond doubt that Mr Dutton continues to exert undue influence over refugee legislation, and immigration policy more broadly, from the opposition benches. The Labor Party never learns that when you try to appease people like Mr Dutton they will take everything you have to offer, then take another giant step to the right and go again, and he is going again this week. The Labor Party might as well just make Peter Dutton the minister for home affairs again and be done with it, because that is the level of influence he is exerting over the Labor Party which have now, of course, adopted the Liberals' policy on refugees, stateless people and trampling human rights. The Labor Party talks a lot about making our communities safe, but in fact, the Labor Party's response to the High Court decision has been far more about making the Labor Party safe from Mr Dutton than it has been about making our communities safe. It's time that we in this parliament worked together to uphold human rights and refugee rights, not trample them. 15:32 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland This year already 54 women have been killed by violence, and in just this month of November, in one week, we have seen six women killed—five of them by men they knew. It's clear that men's violence against women and children is an epidemic, and it's past time that government policies reflected this urgency to tackle violence against women and their children. First Nations women, women from culturally diverse backgrounds, women in regional areas, older women, LGBTIQ+ women and women with a disability are even more likely to experience violence. Saturday 25 November was International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and we're now on day 3 of 16 days of activism on this issue. Every year on that day we all recommit to ending sexual and physical violence against women around the world, but frontline support services are still underfunded and women and children are still being turned away as a result of that underfunding. Enough with the empty promises. Enough with ignoring the impact of financial insecurity and housing stress on women's capacity to leave. Enough with underfunding the services that women reach out to you in a crisis. The government has said it wants to end violence against women within a generation, but it's not stumping up the money to do that. The total federal funding commitment over the next five years is $2.23 billion. That sounds good until you realise it's less than half of what the women's safety sector have said they need to meet current demand and help everyone who is currently seeking their help, let alone anyone who seeks help in the future. Labor speaks about difficult choices in the budget. They're spending $313 billion on tax cuts for the very wealthy, but no, they're too poor to afford $1 billion a year for women escaping violence. It's worse than disappointing; it's a betrayal. The housing crisis is felt even more acutely by women and children experiencing family and domestic violence, and women are being forced to choose between abuse and homelessness. Women on low wages or income support are especially vulnerable, yet this government persists in refusing to increase JobSeeker to above the poverty line. You need to not just say the words; you've got to cough up the dough and help fix this. Question agreed to. NOTICES 53 NOTICES Presentation 53 Withdrawal 55 15:34 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Pursuant to notice given this morning, 27 November 2023, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for today, proposing the disallowance of the Competition and Consumer (Gas Market Code) Regulations 2023. Presentation 55 15:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I give notice in general terms under standing order 76(6) of my intention to move a motion on the next day of sitting, relating to the consideration of legislation. BUSINESS 55 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 55 15:35 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons: (a) Senator Bilyk from 27 November to 30 November 2023; (b) Senators Ciccone and White from 27 November to 7 December 2023; and (c) Senators Green, McCarthy and Wong for today. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 55 15:36 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Faruqi from 27 November to 30 November 2023, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 55 NOTICES Postponement 55 15:37 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. COMMITTEES 55 COMMITTEES Select Committee on Insurance 55 Appointment 55 15:37 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Insurance, be established to inquire into and report on improving consumer experiences, choice, and outcomes in Australia's retirement system, with reference to: (a) regulatory and tax impediments to innovation and uptake of insurance products in retirement; (b) the economic costs and opportunities of innovation in our retirement income system; (c) the interaction of health insurance, life insurance, general insurance, and social security supports to retirement outcomes, including options to improve incentives that drive consumer outcomes and support the sustainability of the retirement income system; (d) the potential role of FinTech platforms, technologies, and innovations in supporting better retirement outcomes; (e) policy options to support greater choice and quality of life in the retirement income system, including but not limited to the aged pension, financial advice, home ownership and downsizing, and insurance; (f) progress on implementing the Retirement Income Covenant; and (g) any other related matters. (2) That the committee present its final report by 30 June 2024. (3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, as follows: (a) four nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; (b) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (c) one nominated by minority party or independent senators. (4) That: (a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; (b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; (c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present; and (d) if a member of the committee is unable to attend a meeting of the committee, that member may in writing to the chair appoint a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee at that meeting. If the member is incapacitated or unavailable, a letter to the chair appointing a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee may be signed on behalf of the member by the leader of the party or group on whose nomination the member was appointed to the committee. (5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (6) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. (7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant. (8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee. (9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of two or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (11) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President. (13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. 15:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move an amendment to general business notice of motion 362, as circulated in the chamber: Omit paragraph (1), substitute: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2024: Improving consumer experiences, choice and outcomes in Australia's retirement system, with reference to: Omit paragraph (1)(g), substitute: (g) the impact of climate change on insurance premium affordability and accessibility; (h) the impact that climate change is likely to have on insurance premiums for products, including life, home and contents and small business; (i) the impact of climate change on the value of assets (for example, houses and investments) of retired people; and (j) any other related matters. Omit paragraphs (2) to (13). Question agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the original motion, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, as amended be agreed to. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 57 DOCUMENTS Department of Education 57 Order for the Production of Documents 57 15:39 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Henderson, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the order for the production of documents no. 371, agreed to by the Senate on 7 November 2023, relating to Australian Research Council (ARC) review reports has not been fully complied with, (ii) the Minister for Education, in his response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that the ARC financial sustainability report has been used to inform ongoing Cabinet deliberations and to ensure Cabinet remains an appropriate forum for informed consideration of policy advice, and (iii) it is accepted that deliberations of the Executive Council and of the Cabinet should be able to be conducted in secrecy so as to preserve the freedom of deliberation of those bodies, however this ground relates only to disclosure of deliberations; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Education, noting that: (i) the disclosure of the ARC financial sustainability report does not constitute a disclosure of deliberations of Cabinet, and (ii) the Government has not outlined why the ARC financial sustainability report itself, as opposed to the Cabinet's deliberations on the report, cannot be disclosed, including how disclosure of the report itself could harm the public interest; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Education to comply with the order by no later than midday on 30 November 2023. 15:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will not be supporting this motion. The minister has made a claim of public interest immunity in relation to the ARC financial sustainability report, which has been used to inform ongoing cabinet deliberations. The claim has been made to ensure cabinet remains an appropriate forum for informed consideration of policy advice and to preserve the confidentiality of its considerations. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that notice of motion 395 standing in the name of Senator Henderson regarding compliance with an order for the production of documents—ARC review reports—be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:44]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 27 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 58 DOCUMENTS Infrastructure: Review 58 Order for the Production of Documents 58 15:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 5 pm on 28 November 2023, the final report of the government infrastructure review, conducted by former Infrastructure Department Secretary, Mr Mike Mrdak AO. Question agreed to. Australian Human Rights Commission 58 Order for the Production of Documents 58 15:48 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Cash I move general notice business notices of motion Nos 399 and 400 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 399 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on 29 November 2023: (a) all signed and unsigned ministerial submissions received by the Attorney-General's office relating to the Australian Human Rights Commission's appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor; (b) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor; and (c) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Prime Minister and/or his office in relation to Australian Human Rights Commission's appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 400 That there be laid on the table by the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, by no later than midday on 30 November 2023: (a) all correspondence between the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General and/or his office in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor; (b) all correspondence between the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General's Department in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor; (c) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence between the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and commissioners in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor; and (d) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence relating to the decision of whom to appoint as legal representation, in relation to the Australian Human Rights Commission's appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motions standing in the name of Senator Cash concerning orders for the production of documents of the Australian Human Rights Commission be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:49]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

Question negatived.

Defence Procurement 59 Order for the Production of Documents 59 15:51 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than midday on Thursday, 30 November 2023: (a) the terms of reference of the review undertaken by the Department of Defence into Defence's conduct of the Hunter Class Frigate procurement (the review); (b) all correspondence or other documents appointing the review team for the review; and (c) the report of the review. (2) That once received by the Clerk or the President, documents returned and any correspondence responding to the order shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate and publication of the documents is authorised. 15:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move that the motion be amended as follows: Paragraph (1), after "That", insert ", subject to appropriate redactions to protect national security,". Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Asylum Seekers 60 Order for the Production of Documents 60 15:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 1 pm on 30 November 2023, the following: (a) the total dollar amount of funding provided to the Papua New Guinea Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority (the Authority) or other entities under the 'Funding Arrangement Supporting Papua New Guinea's Independent Management of the Residual Regional Processing Caseload' (the funding arrangement), signed in December 2021; (b) the schedule of payments, including dates and dollar amount of all monies paid to date, to the Authority or other entities associated with the funding arrangement, including the details of the entity to whom these payments were made; (c) any correspondence between the Department of Home Affairs, Australian Border Force, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or any other Australian Government agency relating to the requirements for financial reporting, acquittal or auditing of expenditure under the funding arrangement; (d) all documentation relating to the fraud and corruption prevention activities and planning undertaken in relation to the funding arrangement, in line with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework; (e) any correspondence from, to or between Australian Government officials relating to concerns about fraud and corruption (actual or prospective) in the expenditure of the funding arrangement; (f) any agreements or correspondence with the Authority or other entities outlining or negotiating the healthcare, welfare accommodation or other services to be provided to the 'residual caseload' under the funding arrangement, and the period for which these were to be provided; and (g) any correspondence or representations from, to or between Australian Government officials and the Authority regarding current funding shortfalls or debts to Papua New Guinean businesses that may be considered to be related to the funding arrangement. 15:53 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Australia and PNG ended their regional processing association on 31 December 2021 through the mutual termination of the regional resettlement arrangement. On 1 January 2022, the PNG government assumed full and independent management of individuals remaining in PNG. The Department of Home Affairs does not have any role in the ongoing management of or service delivery arrangements for individuals remaining in PNG. Australia agreed a confidential bilateral arrangement with the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority in December 2021 to support PNG's independent management of the residual caseload. In consultation with and mutual agreement between Australia and PNG, care and management of this group transitioned to the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority from 1 September 2023. The PNG Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority is providing access to secure and sustainable accommodation, welfare and health services and employment and community linking services. The funding assists the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority in providing a range of settlement, welfare and health support to individuals remaining in PNG who are pursuing permanent settlement in PNG or pending their resettlement in a third country. Details of the funding arrangement remain confidential between PNG and Australia. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the chamber is that the motion standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:55]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 61 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Competition and Consumer (Gas Market Code) Regulations 2023 61 Disallowance 61 15:58 Senator 192970 Queensland WATERS (—) (): At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That the Competition and Consumer (Gas Market Code) Regulations 2023, made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, be disallowed. In December, the Greens supported legislation to give the government the power to set caps on the prices of gas and coal—not caps on rents, unfortunately, but we'll come back to that on another day. This regulation is a result of that. From the outset, I want to make it clear that the Greens support cracking down on the unscrupulous conduct of the gas cartel. This gas code does have many important features that we support. We support shifting negotiating power away from the gas cartel and supporting large industrial users who have been screwed over by gas exporters since the east coast was opened up for exports in 2015. We support the transparency changes so that we can better see what's happening in what is otherwise a very murky gas market. We also support using the code to divert gas destined for export to be used here while we transition off gas. But what we cannot and will not vote for is using this gas code to encourage the opening up of new gas fields that are cooking our planet; we cannot support throwing more petrol on that fire. When the government announced this gas code on 14 June, they said in their media release: The Gas Code will ensure that Australian gas is available for Australian users at reasonable prices, give producers the certainty that they need to invest in supply … In the same week that the climate minister will announce how they're falling just short of their 2030 target—expected to be announced on Friday, and which I know is aligned more to two degrees of warming than it is to 1½, which would be catastrophic for the planet—the Albanese government are again going to vote to support new gas fields. What part of 'no new coal and gas' does this government not understand? We are conscious that there's a gas shortfall hitting the east coast market from 2027 onwards, and that something needs to be done about it. There are three things that the government could do in the four years that we have to prepare for that. They could increase supply through new toxic gas fields. They could reduce demand by electrifying homes, businesses and industry. They could divert existing gas supplies away from the LNG industry, which is the biggest user of gas in this country, and fill the supply gap that way. But it seems like the government is putting all of its energy into simply opening up new gas fields and is completely neglecting the importance of getting Australia off gas and lowering energy bills as a result of doing so. We do have the time. Germany, for example, reduced their gas use by 18 per cent in one year, when Russia invaded Ukraine. They did this through installing heat pumps and through energy efficiency. We've got four years to do what they managed to do in one year, but what we don't have, seemingly, is the political will. The government could also go harder in making sure that Australian gas stays here while we transition off it. Take, for example, the GLNG terminal in Gladstone which is owned by Santos, a well-known donor to the government and also to the opposition, I might add. Santos are currently buying up to 22 petajoules out of the domestic market to meet their own contractual shortfalls. They jumped the shark on their own contract promises and now they're chewing up uncontracted gas to meet their own overblown commitments, and everybody else is suffering. Santos screwed up their own contracts and now they're sucking gas out of our market to export overseas. It's very nice for them, not so great for Australians. It's not a sovereign risk to let Santos deal with the mess of their own making. That is not sovereign risk. If we let them keep taking our gas, then it's the Australian people's mess to clean up and they'll be the ones paying higher prices. But because taking action would disadvantage Santos—well, it's a bridge too far for this government. They're going to bend over backwards for Santos and leave the mess for the Australian people to deal with. The government has a number of options. It could also tighten the baselines of LNG terminals under the safeguard mechanism. If they electrified the compressors they use to convert gas to LNG—to liquefied natural gas—it could free up a staggering 92 petajoules a year. There are many options. This government needs to focus their minds on how we use less gas. Yet, it seems like all they want to do is open up new gas fields. They've drafted a code of conduct that applies a price cap that says: 'You don't have to meet the price cap if you open up new supply.' Farmers around the country are pulling their hair out. First Nations owners around the country are pulling their hair out. They've seen the damage that coal seam gas and other unconventional gas has already done to farmland, our groundwater, the climate, agricultural productivity and culturally sensitive areas. They've seen that damage and they don't want new gas fields. They don't want what's left of the beautiful farmland in the Darling Downs, for example, where I was a couple of days ago, wrecked by more coal seam gas. I'm yet to find a supporter of this proposal, that there's a gas cap that you can avoid if you open up a new gas field—except, of course, Santos. They would love this. As big donors to the government, perhaps they've written this gas code, like they've written previous bits of regulation. I was in Toowoomba on Thursday, and I want to commend the Toowoomba Regional Council for being the sixth council in Queensland to declare a moratorium on new coal seam gas operations. It's some of our best soil, in that area. In the 13 years that I've been representing the state of Queensland, I've been out there many times and I've observed the beauty and productivity of that black soil. I think we've even had folk from other political parties take an interest in this issue as well, which is great. Finally, the council have said the farmers don't want this. They don't want new coal seam gas wrecking their farmland and poisoning or dewatering their aquifers, particularly when there is still no legal right for landholders, traditional owners or councils to say 'no' to coal seam gas or coal on their land. I've had a private senator's bill to do that since 2011. It has been voted down more times than I can remember—at least five—even though it's actually in the LNP's platform, or was at some point. They kept voting against their own policy. Farmers and traditional owners do not have the ability to actually say, 'No, I'd rather use my land for productive agriculture,' or, 'I'd rather simply continue to exist in this beautiful agricultural area than have Santos'—or whichever multinational gas company it is that's eating up the land, poisoning the water and polluting the climate—'come in and ride roughshod.' They don't have that legal right to say 'no'. So I want to take the opportunity to thank the Toowoomba Regional Council for, belatedly but really in a well-done fashion, finally representing the interests of their constituents. As the sixth council that's now done so, it sends a really strong message, both to the state government—who are also in cahoots with the gas industry—and to the federal government. Councils don't want this. They don't want new gas fields. Farming communities don't want new gas fields. Traditional owners don't want new gas fields. Nobody wants the land wrecked and the water poisoned, or the climate polluted, just for the sake of the private profits of Santos and their other gas mates. What kind of a dodgy outcome is that? What are we meant to be here for? Who are we meant to be representing? I know some of the people in the government used to work for Santos, but you're not meant to work for them now. You're meant to be in here representing the people. Senator Chisholm 39801 Name them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Order! Senator WATERS 192970 I'm not sure if I will name them, but I think those interjecting right now know exactly where they used to work—we all know too. I'm sick of the fossil fuel company running this parliament. I'm sick of the donations that they make that buy influence over this parliament. I'm sick of the 'regulation' being written by them in a way that creates loopholes for them. And everybody else is sick of it too. We've got a gas code here that does do some good things, but the absolute flaw in this code is that it will incentivise the opening up of new gas fields. The Greens just cannot support that. We will never support new coal, oil or gas. We're in a climate crisis, folks. What more scientific evidence do you need? How many more natural disasters do you need us all to experience before the penny will drop that you can't fix this issue by making it worse? We heard from Minister Bowen, who gave a bit of a sneak peek of what's going to be announced on Friday, that you're not going to meet your greenhouse gas reduction targets. We saw an announcement late last week that you'll underwrite more renewable energy, which is also facing a shortfall, to help meet that target. Yet now you want to write a code that essentially incentivises the gas companies to open up new gas fields. I'm sorry, but it just does not add up. You can't say you're taking climate action and, at the same time, tick off on almost every coalmine that crosses your desk and facilitate new gas fields being opened up. Nobody is fooled by that. They are sick of the mining companies, and the fossil fuel companies in particular, running this parliament. We will not be supporting this gas code of conduct and we are moving to disallow it. I might just add that, in this place, in our last sitting week, we had a debate about the water trigger, which currently applies to coal seam gas but does not apply to unconventional gas—to the shale and tight gas that exists in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Currently, their water is not protected at all by federal environmental laws. The Greens, again, have a bill to fix that and to extend that protection to all forms of gas extraction and include all unconventional gas in the water trigger. The timing of that could be quite nice, but rather than the government delivering on expanding the water trigger—which, I might add, is in their party policy, but we're still waiting for the delivery of that one—they're racing through new gas fields. It hearkens back to 2013, when the initial water trigger was introduced. The then environment minister, Minister Burke, ticked off on two massive coal seam gas fields and then, seven days later, decided we needed a water trigger. The people are alive to how much influence the fossil fuel companies have on this parliament and they're fed up with it. They'd like their democracy back. They want you to stop taking the dirty donations from these companies that so poison your decision-making and they would like to see their water protected. They would like to have affordable energy to run their homes and businesses and they would like you to look at supporting businesses to transition off gas, not to create backdoors to prop up Santos's private profits. That is not your job anymore. Your job is here in this place now, and you are meant to be representing the people, the public interest. You are meant to be protecting the climate. We will be disallowing this gas code and we invite others to join us in doing so. 16:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I will keep my remarks to the right amount of time to hear some speakers from the coalition on their position in relation to this disallowance because I'd be very interested to see what the position is of the alternative government in this disallowance motion, which is so irresponsible. It ought never have come here. It ought to be withdrawn. Apart from its stated purpose, the consequences of the Senate adopting the disallowance motion just spoken to, moved by Senator McKim, would be to put thousands of jobs at risk in our manufacturing sector on the east coast, thousands of jobs of people you will never meet, people whose interests you're not interested in, people whose work is fundamental to whether or not we can achieve the energy transition that is required in the manner in default manufacturing sector. We would put thousands of those jobs at risk tomorrow. It would mean the cost reductions that have been assessed for Australian families and businesses of around 25 per cent that have been achieved by the price caps—I know energy prices keep going up—would be at risk because of this disallowance. The stability, the certainty that is required for investment not only in gas more broadly but in the energy sector in total are fundamental to us achieving our decarbonisation objectives, keeping energy prices low, building new industry. All of that investment would be at risk because of this irresponsible, disconnected-with-reality intervention from the Greens political party. Who knows what the coalition, the alternative party of government, are going to do in this debate? They have been very coy about the position that they intend to adopt on these issues. It also puts at risk the deal announced today that is based on the code announced by Minister Bowen today with Cenex and APLNG to deliver secure gas supply for east coast manufacturers. All of those things will be put at risk for a stunt and a series of slogans. Senator AYRES 16913 The proposition that comes from the interjections over here and also in Senator Waters's contribution that there is a relationship— Senator McKim JKM There is a relationship between you and the gas companies! Senator AYRES 16913 That is exactly the point—undermine any capacity for a decent debate here. You know what, Senator McKim? We are advancing— Senator AYRES 16913 You ought to withdraw that. That is a grubby slur, and what we don't like— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator McKim, I would like you to reflect on the comments you've just made and I ask you to withdraw them. They were unparliamentary. Senator McKim JKM I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you, Senator McKim. Senator AYRES 16913 What is going on here is that the government has a different view to you. The government has an ambitious position in relation to decarbonisation. The government has an ambitious position in terms of the re-industrialisation of the Australian economy. The government has an ambitious position in terms of transforming our electricity and energy sectors. And we disagree with you—we disagree with the Greens political party—about the way that can be achieved. The approach advanced by the Greens political party—and who knows whether it will be supported by the Liberals and Nationals—puts at risk our transition to a cleaner economy. It puts at risk thousands and thousands of jobs in manufacturing firms who rely upon gas for their feedstock and for their energy source, firms that are working with the government through the programs we have set out to make the transition that they need to make, to do the investments that they need to invest in to make sure that they can make the transition that is required. But this group down here on my right don't care about any of that. What they want is a simple slogan, social media posts and no substantive policy change. This is postmodern politics. It is saying what you feel, saying what you think. It is losing touch with reality that our job here is about what we can actually achieve and do, about what we can do. And the position that has been advanced in this disallowance is the politics of feelings, not the politics of facts. It's utterly disconnected with the reality for modern industry, utterly disconnected with what the objectives of the government should be here. This time last year, gas suppliers were quoting contact prices of $35 a gigajoule compared to $10 a gigajoule in 2021, but that's what the code is designed to deal with: to shield households and industry from these unprecedented price rises. The government acted. It is not a form of action that would ever have been any government's preferred approach, but it is the right approach—that is, setting the price of gas at a reasonable price for industry and for households. The exemptions are there in order to make sure that the government can achieve what it needs to achieve in making sure that Australians can meet their domestic gas requirements. That is the truth. You may not like it, you may scoff, but jobs and industry and the decarbonisation agenda rely upon making sure that industry has the capacity to secure the energy needs that it requires. Gas is also an important pillar of our international relations. Australia's gas is fundamental for our North Asian partners, particularly Japan and Korea, in making sure they can (a) go through security for their industry but (b) also be able to go through the transition to net zero that their economies have to undertake. They actually have to have energy security in order to undertake the transition that they know they must undertake, and this approach undermines all of those objectives: energy security, low costs for households and for business, rebuilding Australian manufacturing, and our regional relationships and the energy security of our partners. It is utterly irresponsible. It is not a surprise. What I am very interested to see is the position that the coalition adopt around this and whether they have the discipline and the capacity to marshal their whole caucus behind doing the right thing and voting down this reprehensible disallowance. 16:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I once again find myself voting with the Greens in supporting this disallowance motion—although for very different reasons. This motion would stop the Labor government's gas code of conduct and price cap. The Greens are opposing it because they say it doesn't go far enough. One Nation says it should never have put in place at all. You may remember nearly a year ago the Albanese Labor government rushed everyone from across the country back to parliament for an extraordinary extra day of sitting. This extra day of unscheduled sitting may have cost millions of dollars. We'll never know the true cost. When the Senate passed my motion to order the production of documents the Senate ordered the Labor government to disclose how much calling everyone back, because of their mismanagement, had cost taxpayers. Instead of the documents containing the costs, the government may as well have delivered an envelope containing a middle finger. 'We're not going to tell you' was essentially the response. That extra sitting was to rush through the legislation to give energy minister Chris Bowen the power to effectively nationalise the entire gas market if he chose. Imagine giving that man power to look at the Sunday market. By executive decree, the minister for future blackouts, Chris Bowen, created these regulations imposing a price cap and a mandatory code of conduct dictating who could and couldn't sell gas in Australia, the terms and the prices. Remember that this tin-pot dictatorship near nationalisation of the gas industry was meant to cut everyone's power bills. It has done nothing to bring down power bills and will likely only make things worse down the road. While the gas price cap was in place the wholesale prices continued to go up—they increased. Power prices got so high that state governments had to step in with direct bill relief with the federal government, taxpayers, paying for it. Mums and dads at home and small businesses are paying for it. This flood of government subsidies has been huge. It hit roughly half a per cent for the most recent inflation figures. Q3 inflation was 5.4 per cent. Without all of the government bill relief it would have been 5.8 per cent, almost six per cent. While these subsidies might temporarily make electricity bills look cheaper, they're just a bandaid on the national electricity grid that's becoming increasingly unaffordable, unreliable and unstable. These coupons, rebates and subsidies will roll off over the next six months and more Australians will begin to see just how much the net zero push has ruined our country's most essential utility—keeping the lights on. The Labor government fails to appreciate that when it comes to prices there are only ever two factors at play—supply and demand. Demand for electricity remains pretty steady on a predictable increase. That's not going to change until the government installs smart meters in everyone's house and it can turn off the power remotely. Remember, it's not technically a blackout if the government chooses to turn your smart meter off. The only solution to power prices is more supply of cheap, affordable, consistent, stable, reliable electricity. The only forms of electricity that tick those boxes are coal, nuclear and hydro—not pumped hydro, which is a scam dreamt up in the net zero pipedream. It's important to remember why gas prices are so damn high. The government announced that coal is dirty—and that's a lie. Making reliable electricity from coal isn't allowed because they say it produces carbon dioxide—a natural trace gas essential to all life on our planet—yet burning gas that produces carbon dioxide is okay. That's what happens in the net zero, upside-down world. Remember, wind and solar cannot deliver power when we need it. They need reliable sources to back them up. Gas is the only one available that's net zero cult approved. This huge boom in gas demand as coal is shunted to the side is leading to higher prices, higher power bills and instability of the electricity grid. The underlying cause of high gas prices is the demand due to the insane net zero pipedream, pushing expensive, unstable, unreliable solar and wind. Until the underlying cause is fixed, no bandaid can fix it. The government has been meddling in the electricity market for decades to achieve political net zero agendas for the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. The answer to the problems isn't to meddle even harder. Meddling caused the problems. We don't want to meddle harder. There's a very simple fix to skyrocketing electricity bills—just ditch the renewable energy target and give a promise to the coal-fired generators that the government won't purposely try to send them broke, as they're currently trying to do. In Collinsville in North Queensland there used to be a small coal-fired power station. As soon as the 2012 carbon dioxide tax came in—thanks to Labor Prime Minister Gillard and the Greens—it closed up shop. The manufacturing industry and hundreds of breadwinner jobs disappeared. The town is a shadow of what it used to be, and that can be traced back to the day they lost cheap, reliable, stable electricity. That's the story of the whole country ever since we began pursuing the net zero pipedream. Just as easily we can turn this boat around and stop this nonsense. 16:24 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales What we're seeing today is when the Left get together with the crazy far left, because neither have any credibility when it comes to this topic. The fact that the Greens just gave us a lecture about gas projects being built on arable farmland, and the destruction of Indigenous cultural heritage sites, while they consistently vote against any inquiry into transmission lines are going to do exactly those things—destroy arable farmland and destroy cultural Indigenous sites. But no, no, no—in the pyramid of the Greens and the pyramid of the far left, renewable energy is the very top. Whales, koalas and feeding anyone is way down the bottom! But we know their pyramid of priorities is all about solar and wind and those new transmission lines, destroying farmland, destroying communities and destroying Indigenous cultural heritage sites. So do not come in here and admonish anyone for supporting new gas mines that are going to provide energy and security for this country—including our export markets, which pay for all of these little pie-in-the-sky flights of fancy you negotiate with your mates in the government—when you are destroying farmland and you are destroying cultural Indigenous heritage sites all in the name of chasing pipedreams of new transmission lines across this country, decimating communities in rural and remote Australia, all of whom have the sense not to vote for anyone that sits on that side of the chamber. It's absolutely disgraceful behaviour. We on this side will not be supporting Greens disallowance motion today. They just want to attack any exemptions from the code and, ultimately, shut the gas industry down. They'd have us all living in trees if they had their way! Maybe they can stop with their business-class fights and their Comcars every time they come to parliament—they can ride their electric bikes. Maybe they should live by what they preach to everybody else. To put it on the record, the coalition does not support this Labor government's continuing attacks on the gas sector. This government has put Australia's natural gas market under extreme pressure with their heavy-handed interventions and policies that are harming investment but in no way increasing supply. We on this side have repeatedly warned the government of the long-term impacts of their policies over the past 15 months. We've called on the government to cease their constant interventions. I heard them referred to as bandaids—little sugar hits on energy bills, doing nothing to help Australian families facing real and ever-increasing energy bills because of their incompetence to manage the energy market. Their interventions are distorting the market and continue to cause more problems. We know that we need around 30 per cent more gas by 2050. We also know that this government is putting more money into the Environmental Defenders Office. That's great! That's really well done! One of my favourites—I miss him desperately—the former member for Hunter, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, came out saying exactly the same: that those opposite have lost the plot by funding the EDO. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the disallowance motion as moved by Senator Waters, at the request of Senator McKim, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Canavan, M. J. Cox, D. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 21 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF URGENCY 66 MATTERS OF URGENCY First Nations Australians 66 16:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 27 November 2023, from Senator Thorpe: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Following the failed Voice referendum, the Albanese Government must fulﬁl their promise to First Peoples in this country by progressing Truth and Treaty in this term of government. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:34 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Following the failed Voice referendum, the Albanese Government must fulfil their promise to First Peoples in this country by progressing Truth and Treaty in this term of government. The war and genocidal project against First Peoples has never ended. This war continues with different weapons and tools of oppression: mass incarceration, over-policing of communities, child removals and creating conditions that make life seem too hard to keep living. First Peoples and people of colour live the ongoing impacts of this war every day. We bore the brunt of it during the racism that flourished from the referendum campaign. The bare minimum this government owes to First Peoples is to fulfil its commitment to truth and treaty. Last week, the Call It Out racism register proved what every person of colour knows—that racism festers in every corner of this colony, on the streets and in workplaces, schools, health-care services, police stations, courts, government agencies and business. The nation-state of Australia's illegitimate claim to political sovereignty is founded upon racist beliefs. Public health studies have proved the impact that this has on the physical and mental health of First Peoples and people of colour. It is a disease that erodes the fabric of our society, killing our lands and waters, keeping First Peoples and refugees of colour locked up and tearing children away from their families and culture. In the words of the multitalented poet and Wiradjuri-Gamilaraay woman Lorna Munro: 'We are invested in a colonial system of governance that is unable to cater to our need for humanity, society, community and ecological level. Our governance systems did not go anywhere. Everyone will talk about doomsday climate change, but no-one wants to talk about the systems of government required to achieve that stability.' This is why it is important to tell the truth of this place, because, in order for us to heal ourselves from this disease, we have to start by understanding how we got here and how the systems of governance that have been built in this colony do so much harm to all of us and our environment. This land has a black history. We have the stories of how things were before the colonisers arrived and what has happened since. Conversations about this history used to happen in black spaces only, but, more and more often, people are starting to explore this history and ask the important questions around dinner tables and in classrooms. 'How did your ancestors arrive here? What role did they play in the colonial occupation and dispossession of First Peoples of these lands? What is the history of the place you actually live and work?' There are hard but necessary conversations that we need to have. Black power in this country is strong and growing, and more and more people are learning its black history and embracing a black future that works for everyone. From a new shared understanding, we can build new systems of government that respect the political sovereignty of First Peoples and are grounded in care and custodianship for each other and the environment. This system is one that nurtures and thinks about transformative ideas of justice, where we no longer need prisons and detention centres and where healthy country and healthy people are not sacrificed for the profit of a few. We have done so before, and we can create it again for all of us. This can be done through a treaty process—one that incorporates all 250-plus language groups. This cannot just be a federal or state issue. It is all of our responsibility across all systems of governance, from the bottom to the top. This change will happen, and it will need a lot of energy, love, care and community. It would happen a lot faster, and with far less pain and suffering for everyone, if everyone in this chamber supported the real truth in this country. 16:39 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Let me be very clear: the 'no' vote in Western Australia, and in fact in the entire nation, was not a vote for continued Indigenous disadvantage. It was a vote to find a different way, a way that delivers real life outcomes for disadvantaged Indigenous Australians. The tragedy for our nation and for our Indigenous population is that the Prime Minister and the Labor government have wasted the first half of this term of government—which increasingly looks like, fortunately, a one-term government—pursuing their ideological Voice, and now they have no plan whatsoever. In fact, an editorial in the West Australian last week really summed it up very nicely. The editorial said this: There was one question Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was desperate to avoid answering during the doomed Voice referendum campaign. What if it fails? … And in the aftermath of that disastrous campaign, the Albanese Government has busied itself with moving onto other things to distract— them and the Australian people— from that monumental loss. It also went on to note: Mr Albanese hopped on a plane almost immediately after the referendum, and has spent much of the five weeks since at various overseas engagements—state dinners at the White House, meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, busting some moves in the Cook Islands. Meanwhile, the same problems of Aboriginal disadvantage have remained— and are getting worse. Since that went down so decisively, what have the government done? Absolutely nothing. As I said, they have no plan. It is very clear, in relation to this motion from Senator Thorpe, who we welcome back, that Australians don't want a Voice and don't want the concept of truth and treaty. They want real outcomes. On this side of the chamber, we have put forward multiple practical and sensible initiatives which those opposite and the Greens have failed to support, somewhat unbelievably. After the failed referendum, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition; and the shadow Indigenous minister, Senator Nampijinpa Price, called on the government to establish a royal commission into child sex abuse in Indigenous communities, a call strongly supported on this side of the chamber. But guess what? On a royal commission into the absolutely scandalous rates of child sex abuse in Indigenous communities, those opposite said no. Not only that; we also suggested that we do an audit on spending across the entire federal government. Tens of billions of dollars a year are spent on Indigenous programs intended to close the gaps, but they don't work. We need to understand where this money is going, why it is not working and how we can, as a start, redirect those tens of billions of dollars annually to programs that work. But, again, those opposite have simply refused to do this. Now, coming to Western Australia and all state and territory governments, clearly the responsibility for delivering the services and ensuring the Closing the Gap outcomes are met rests with state and territory governments. The health systems, the education systems, the juvenile justice systems, the job programs, the training programs and community housing, for example, are all state government responsibilities. Again, it's not like they're not getting the money from the federal taxpayers—they are—but they are not being held accountable. That is particularly so in Western Australia, where we have such entrenched Indigenous disadvantage not just in our remote communities but in Perth and in other metropolitan areas. So we have to start finding out where this money is going and what is working—and there are programs that are working—so that we can force state and territory governments to start making a difference. And it has to be done across the aisles in this place and in the other place. (Time expired) 16:45 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria There's no denying that Victoria leads the nation in ensuring decision-making powers are in Aboriginal hands. As Senator Thorpe would know, Victoria is boldly pursuing treaty and truth-telling, led by the Allan Labor government. I thank Senator Thorpe for bringing this motion today before this chamber. It's an important conversation to have. The First Peoples' Assembly of Victoria was established in December 2019 as an independent and democratically-elected voice for Aboriginal Victorians. Earlier this month, I was proud to welcome the newly elected co-chair of the First Peoples' Assembly, Rueben Berg, as part of a delegation of Victorian Aboriginal leaders to Canberra. Rueben emphasises the importance of including the federal government in Victoria's treaty and truth-telling process. This was the message he sent when speaking with senior members of the Albanese government, including the Prime Minister and Minister for Indigenous Australians. The Albanese Labor government has always been clear in its commitment to listening to First Nations Australians. We have always been clear that any progress on truth-telling and treaty is to be done in consultation with community. We need to listen to First Nations communities on the best way forward. We are going to take the time to listen to First Nations people about what those next steps look like. We're going to listen to what our community wants, whether it's mob in Central Australia or in Far North Queensland or whether it's my mob in Victoria. We owe it to our community to get this done and to get it done right. The National Indigenous Australians Agency to date has focused on understanding the truth-telling and treaty processes in states like Victoria. Last year, Victoria established an impartial, independent treaty authority to oversee treaty negotiations. This is critical to ensuring that Aboriginal law and cultural authority are observed and upheld through the treaty process. We understand that the treaty process takes time and it requires continuous consultation and engagement with First Nations people. Further to this, Victoria's Yoorrook Justice Commission is the first of its kind in Australia. Since its creation in May 2021, the role of Yoorrook has been to bring truth to the injustice of the past across all areas of social, political and economic life. With the full powers of a royal commission, the commission has held formal hearings and investigated historical and ongoing injustices committed against Aboriginal Victorians since colonisation. Victoria's Yoorrook Justice Commission I'm sure will be amongst many other things considered by the Albanese Labor government when thinking about our relationship with First Nations people—our partnerships with First Nations people and thinking about, 'Where to next?' We are going to take the time to listen, engage and seek advice from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which of course includes bodies like the democratically-elected First Peoples' Assembly. I want to commend the great work of the Assembly in pursuing treaty and truth-telling in my home state. I'm proud to represent Victoria, which leads the nation when it comes to Aboriginal affairs. In fact, it was the Victorian Labor government's commitment to treaty that piqued my interest in politics for the first time. It's why I became a Labor person. Aboriginal affairs has always been at the heart of any Labor government's agenda. It was a Labor government under Whitlam that brought the first Commonwealth legislation to grant land rights before this parliament, and it was a Labor government under Hawke that pursued self-determination through practical, representative bodies that could directly influence government policy more significantly than had ever been done before. It was a Labor government under Kevin Rudd that first apologised for the dispossession and forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, communities and country. Labor's guiding principle has always been about getting better results for First Nations people with First Nations people, and a core component of getting better results is listening to communities about what they need. What this clearly demonstrates is that, if we want progress on First Nations justice and aspirations, then we need to make sure that a Labor government is in charge, because it's only a Labor government that will deliver First Nations justice for First Nations people. 16:49 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia The Greens were, proudly, the first party to commit in full to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and we remain committed to it. It is vital that this government works with the states and territories to progress truth-telling and treaties, and to ensure that momentum is not lost following the referendum. Our communities need to see that this government, and state and territory governments, actually have our backs and will not back away to the easy option of turning their backs on community. In fact, and unfortunately, that's what we're seeing right now. There is some work happening, and I would like to use the rest of my time to quickly whip around the country and have a look at that. Starting in my home state of Western Australia: we have what many people describe as the first treaty in our country, the Noongar Settlement, which involved the largest agreement in Australia. And we passed the Noongar (Koorah, Nitja, Boordahwan) (Past, Present, Future) Recognition Act in 2016, formally acknowledging the Noongar people as the traditional owners. WA also undertook constitutional recognition in 2005, all under Liberal governments. Unfortunately, WA hasn't moved much further beyond that, but that's another yarn for another time. Heading north-east, the Northern Territory's Chief Minister signed the Barunga Agreement in 2018 as the basis for treaty negotiations. The Treaty Commissioner in the NT called for truth-telling to begin as soon as possible, before treaty negotiations. However, over the shutdown period last year the government quietly released its formal response to this report. The independent treaty commission was to be abolished and the government would do its own consultation. In Queensland in 2019, the state government created two bodies: a working group and an eminent panel to conduct initial work on the path to a treaty. Both of these bodies called for a truth and healing commission, and for an independent First Nations treaty institute to be established. This year, the Queensland government passed a bill called the Path to Treaty, which stated that truth-telling and healing processes would occur over the next three years and would inform the treaty process. In New South Wales, the Labor government made an election commitment to take their first steps towards a treaty. But, following the referendum, the New South Wales Labor government said they will not progress beyond consultation until after the next election. Here in the ACT, the government released a report in July 2022 examining treaty processes. This report had mixed reviews, and the government apologised for poor consultation and acknowledged that healing was needed before a treaty. It's worth noting that there has been an elected body, very similar to the proposed voice to parliament, functioning in the ACT since 2008. As Senator Stewart has already mentioned, the First Nations People's Assembly of Victoria has been established for treaty negotiations. The treaty process in Victoria is the most advanced, seeing the first treaty legislation passed in 2018. It laid out the legislative basis for negotiations and a road map. The independent Treaty Authority has been established and it is expected that negotiations will begin imminently. Further, their truth and justice commission has been operating since 2021, known as the Yoorrook Justice Commission. The commission handed down an interim report in September this year, with 46 recommendations for the Victorian government, and the final report is due in June 2024. Down south, in Tasmania, the state government has started discussions about what a truth and treaty process should look like, showing that taking action towards truth and treaty can be done by a Liberal government. First Nations people in Tasmania have made it clear that truth-telling cannot be the end in itself but must lead to tangible outcomes. Similar to other jurisdictions, this process found mob calling for truth-telling before a treaty. In 2022 an Aboriginal advisory group was created to codesign the truth-telling and treaty processes with the Tasmanian government. Finally, in South Australia, the state government and the Narungga Aboriginal Corporation signed the Buthera Agreement in 2018, establishing the basis for treaty negotiations. However, a change in government saw a new Liberal Premier put a pause on that. Following another change of government in 2022, earlier this year we saw South Australia become the first jurisdiction to legislate a state based voice to parliament. Elections are due in March next year, and it is expected that the treaty process will recommence shortly after this. So although they may all be at different stages, progress is happening in most jurisdictions. But what is absolutely clear, despite the result of the referendum, is that we have a long road ahead of us and it's now time for federal leadership on this issue. 16:54 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory On 14 October, 60.3 per cent of Territorians said no. Much has been said by the Labor government, who have tried to claim that the majority of Indigenous Territorians voted yes in the Northern Territory. In actual fact in Lingiari, where this claim has been made, 56 per cent of registered voters turned out. So 35,000 registered voters out of a total of 80,000 registered voters turned out to vote. This tells me, as a senator of the Northern Territory, that the vast majority of Indigenous voters in remote communities chose not to vote at all because they didn't believe in the proposal that was put before them. In South Australia, 64.17 per cent said no; in Western Australia, 63.27 per cent said no; in New South Wales, 58.96 per cent said no; down in Tasmania, 58.94 per cent said no; in Queensland, 68.21 per cent—about seven of every 10 people—said no; and even in Victoria, 54.15 per cent said no. A total of 60.06 per cent of Australians said no. They said no to division. They said no to separatism. They said no to the Voice. And they said no to the Uluru statement in full. Yet there seem to be some in this building who think that result was somehow unclear. Even worse, there seem to be people in this building who think we don't need to listen to the result. There are people here who still treat Indigenous Australians as if we all think the same and want the same. We do not. Yet this Albanese government seems intent on continuing its activist agenda with complete disregard for the will of the people it is meant to represent. It is moving forward in complete indifference to the real and urgent needs of Indigenous Australians living in remote and rural Australia. Practical examples have been provided, like a royal commission into the sexual abuse of Indigenous children. We hear about a royal commission conducted by the Yoorrook commission. Why then does this government fail to acknowledge that Indigenous children experience the highest rates of sexual abuse in the country? Why does this government not want to know a thing about it? It talks about listening to Indigenous Australians, and yet we have the member for Lingiari having to apologise to the principal of Yipirinya School who looks after the most marginalised children within the community. The elders of that school have been screaming out for support, and yet we hear platitudes about listening and working with Indigenous Australians. It's all lip service. There still is no plan. We've wasted 18 months through a referendum and no action on the ground for our most marginalised. We can't continue to waste time with talks of treaties and truth-telling when the truth is that there are people—children, women, men—suffering right now. They're suffering because we have the highest rates of black-on-black violence in this country, but let's not address the elephant in the room. Let's pretend it's something else. Well Australians, including Indigenous Australians, have had enough of the talk. They've had enough of the division. They've had enough of the virtue signalling, the grand gestures that offer little in way of practical outcomes. They want us, those of us who have been elected, to improve the lives of everybody in this country. They want those of us in this building to come together to work on real and practical solutions to improve the lives of our most marginalised. We know how to fix these issues, so can we stop this nonsense and just crack on with it please. 16:59 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Much more than the racist Voice to Parliament was rejected by an overwhelming majority of Australians at the referendum. Australians understood that the Voice was a crucial first step towards a treaty, and they knocked it back. They understood the Voice, treaty and truth-telling would divide this country by race, and they knocked them back. They understood that failure to close the gaps would not be fixed by more bureaucracy and billions of dollars more wasted on the Aboriginal industry gravy train. They heard from this industry and the Indigenous elites who live large on the Australian taxpayer while Aborigines in remote communities continue to suffer poverty, crime and welfare dependency. They were lectured to by big business, big banks, academics, activists, the Greens, the Teals, Minister Burney and Prime Minister Albanese. They heard these out-of-touch leaders tell them they were racist and stupid if they didn't do what they were told. They were told Australia's international reputation would suffer. Then these leaders went on the BBC to trash Australia's international reputation. They were told by these same out-of-touch leaders that the 'no' campaign was all lies, misinformation and disinformation. They watched the 'yes' campaign castigate the media for daring to report on the 'no' campaign. They rejected all of it. There is no war on Indigenous Australians, as Senator Thorpe pretends. That she sits in this parliament, along with other Indigenous people, shows this claim for the lie that it is. Senator Thorpe is no victim, on her taxpayer-funded salary. Most Indigenous people reject the idea that they are victims. Governments do not sign treaties with their own citizens. For the education of senators, I repeat this essential principle of Australian democracy: equal rights for all, and special rights for none. That's because, regardless of race, we all share in the story that is Australia. We all should contribute according to our capabilities, abilities and aspirations. But I have to ask the question: what special or unique contribution entitles Indigenous Australians to special or unique rights greater than those of anyone else? The answer is: none whatsoever. Let me read out a comment that was sent to me on my Facebook page by Rebecca. She states: 'Can we stop using the term "traditional owners"? Aborigines did not, and do not, own Australia. They were original inhabitants and that is it. Mother Nature provided all that Aboriginals claim as theirs. They did not build Ayers Rock, the Three Sisters, Kakadu, the river systems, the mountains et cetera. They used the land and its natural resources and structures that were already there. They did not construct or design a damned thing and, just as they continue to do today, use and take whatever is available to them.' That's from an Australian, and that's how a lot of Australians feel. Senator Thorpe 280304 Not all of them. Senator HANSON BK6 What people like Senator Thorpe tend to forget is the fact that I was born here too. So were millions of other Australians and the migrants that have come here. All I've asked for is equality for all Australians. If you need it, you get that helping hand. If you don't need it, then, fine, you don't—you work hard for what you need. That's been proven by the 11 senators in this parliament who are of Aboriginal descent. Yet you want special treatment, and you don't deserve it—no more than anyone else. Senator Thorpe 280304 You need to be unwelcomed in this place. Senator HANSON BK6 So are millions of Australians who don't identify as Aboriginal. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Order, senators! Senator Thorpe 280304 You're unwelcome! Senator HANSON BK6 You're a nasty piece of work. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Take your seats, both of you. Senator Hanson, you have the call. I suggest you make your comments to me as the chair. Senator HANSON BK6 As I said, this country belongs to all of us. It does not belong only to the modern descendants of the Stone Age hunter-gatherers discovered by British explorers and settlers. There is only one nation on this continent. There has only ever been one nation on this continent, founded on 1 January 1901. There cannot be a legitimate treaty. This means there is also no requirement for so-called truth-telling. This is a code for rewriting history to maximise financial settlements in a treaty. Just forget it. The only fair and equitable way forward is for racial separatism and division to be abandoned and for us to move forward as one people and one nation under one flag. We are all Australians together and should be treated equally. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to. Question agreed to. Senator Roberts 266524 by leave—I'd like my name and Senator Hanson's name recorded as opposing that motion. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 71 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 71 17:06 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 A letter has been received from Senator McGrath: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Instead of blaming global uncertainty for higher-than-expected inflation figures, it is clear that rising domestic costs for housing, electricity and groceries demonstrate Australia's inflation problems are now home-grown and the Albanese Labor Government has no plan to make it any easier for Australian households and businesses. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:07 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland It is becoming increasingly clear that inflation is not coming from Ukraine. It is becoming increasingly clear that inflation is not coming from the war in the Middle East. It is becoming increasingly clear that inflation is not coming from whichever random country the Labor Party point to on an atlas. Inflation is coming from Canberra. Inflation is coming from the Prime Minister's Office. It's coming from his desk. Inflation is coming from the cabinet table. Inflation is coming from every Labor MP and senator in this building. The Labor Party are to blame for inflation. Australians are feeling the pain. They are feeling the pain of Labor's approach to inflation. What is interesting is that, in the most recent Newspoll, our Prime Minister, who is commonly known by Australians as 'Airbus Albo', has— Senator Carol Brown F49 Acting Deputy President, a point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order, Senator McGrath. I think I know what the point of order is. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senators, I call you to order. First, I'm going to ask you, Senator Scarr, to withdraw your comment. Senator Scarr 282997 I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 And Senator McGrath, I seek your commitment to not use that term in that way and refer to the Prime Minister by his proper title. You have the call. Senator McGRATH 217241 I withdraw. The Prime Minister has been granted a temporary protection visa to come into this country. It's nice of him to visit Australia. He's got his passport stamped. I hope he enjoys the remaining hours he has in Australia before he departs to go to another foreign country somewhere on an Airbus or a Boeing—it could be a Cessna, or a VIP—whatever that is—one of those Falcons. He might even get one of those boats! Senator Scarr 282997 An Elon Musk rocket! Senator McGRATH 217241 An Elon Musk rocket—he could certainly do that too. What is interesting is that Australians have woken up to this Labor Party and to this Labor government. They know that inflation is coming from the Prime Minister's desk—the vacant Prime Minister's desk that's in a corridor in this building. It's interesting that the RBA Governor, Michele Bullock, came out last week, saying that inflation is becoming increasingly homegrown and demand driven. Why is this? What are some of the reasons for this? Is it because the Labor Party are spending an extra hundred and $88 billion—that is 'b' for billion, as in 'b' in 'Airbus. It's $188 billion extra—that's how much they're spending. Or is it the extra 10,000 public servants who are coming to Canberra? Some of my best friends are public servants—of course, they wouldn't say that in public! But do we really need an extra 10,000 public servants coming to Canberra? No, we don't need that. What the Labor government are doing here is that they're driving up inflation. And when they drive inflation up because of all the extra public servants they're appointing or because of all the extra billions of dollars they're spending, it means that normal Australians, who are dealing with the cost-of-living crisis caused by this Labor government, are being hurt. It's a real kick in the guts for Australians to see a Labor Party and a Labor government who are so out of touch with how modern Australians live their lives. How do they live their lives at the moment? It's by making sure they pay their bills and making sure they work out how the money that's coming in matches the money that's going out. Wouldn't it be nice if this Labor Party government did the same thing with the taxes of the Australian people—making sure that the money which comes in matches the money that's going out? But, oh, no, no! What we see with this Labor Party and this Labor government is a government which is hurting Australians by pushing up inflation. This is the Christmas present that everybody is going to get from the Labor Party—that is, everything is going to cost more. Your stockings, your toys, your Christmas pudding, your mince pies and your mulled wine—everything is going to cost more because of Anthony Albanese and his Labor government. 17:12 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I'll start by thanking Senator McGrath for this particular MPI and for drawing attention to how the government is managing the inflation challenge. The senator proposed that we discuss the government's plans to help households in the current environment, and I am happy to have that discussion. I'm also happy to point out that the coalition have done absolutely nothing to support households from the opposition benches—absolutely nothing. Indeed they've voted against, or opposed, every single measure that has been designed to give households some relief in this environment. They have voted against or opposed every single measure! So let's look at some facts about inflation. First of all, we know that inflation does hurt households and that it hurts the lowest paid the most. That's why we are targeting our $23 billion in relief to those who need it most. This is electricity bill relief that is putting downward pressure on bills for five million households and one million small businesses. It's energy relief that those opposite opposed. There was the largest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare's history, helping 11 million people to see a doctor for free—a measure which those opposite opposed. Australians saved $180 million because of cheaper medicines—$180 million saved, a measure which they opposed. As I said, we know that inflation hurts those with the least; that's why we focused on driving wages growth—after a decade of the Liberals absolutely loving low wages—starting with the lowest paid. There was a much-needed wage rise for our deserving aged-care workers after a decade of neglect by those opposite, with a $100-a-week boost to the minimum wage for our essential workers—which those opposite opposed. We are proud of looking after the most disadvantaged while you stand on the sidelines just saying no. Second—and this is a fact about inflation that those opposite don't want to hear—inflation is moderating. It's moderating here and it's moderating around the world. The most recent IMF World Economic Outlook stated that the IMF expects inflation to return to target in around 2025 in most nations. Treasury here at home expects inflation to return to target in the next financial year. The return to target here is expected to be in line with most other nations. Inflation is moderating here because we are finding savings and because we are targeting relief to people who need it the most. ABS data shows that our cost-of-living measures, which you opposed, shaved half a percentage point off inflation in the September quarter. That is actual data. Third, we know that the experts agree that the government's fiscal strategy is working hand in hand with the RBA's monetary tightening. We are exercising restraint in returning revenue to the budget bottom line. We are getting the budget back in shape by banking new revenue, which is going towards paying down the previous government's debt. We've delivered the first surplus in 15 years and the biggest ever turnaround in the budget—from a $78 billion deficit to a $22 billion surplus. The IMF has said that our budget repair strategy is helping, not hampering, the fight against inflation. We note that Fitch agrees as well. Our AAA credit rating shows that our budget strategy is right for the times. The RBA governor herself, who you have quoted, has described our fiscal strategy as very helpful and very positive. Finally, let's talk about the facts of the opposition's position on inflation. Your position is completely untenable. You opposed measures that we know are helping Australians. You opposed measures that we know are putting downward pressure on bills. You opposed measures that we know are actually shaving inflation. When asked what you'd do differently, you said that you would cut social housing. That's what you told us you would do. When asked what you'd do differently, you said that you would cut the National Reconstruction Fund, just when we're getting our economy moving again. So you keep opposing and you keep saying no and we'll get on with the job of rolling out the support that Australian families need. (Time expired) 17:17 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I rise to speak in support of this matter of public importance. I thank Senator McGrath for raising it, mainly because we on this side of the chamber know that this cost-of-living crisis that we're now in is real. We know because we talk to people about it every single day of the year. The RBA recently confirmed something which those on this side of the chamber have known for a long period of time—that is, that, despite the attempts to distract, blame others and point the finger at international factors and concerns about what's causing this cost-of-living crisis, the cause of this crisis actually arises domestically. For too long we've heard this Labor government blame other people and other things for that which is of their own making—whether it's overseas wars, the cost of the international energy market, UFOs invading or some other factor. If the Labor Party want to have a look at what's causing this, all they need to do tomorrow morning is go into their caucus room and look at each other and potentially even look at the Prime Minister, although there would be a very slim chance of finding him at the helm. Where is he today? Does anybody know? We'd have to check. It has been said before that the best way to get a message through to the Prime Minister is to simply find your way to Washington, get to the west wing and stick a post-it note on Joe Biden's door in order to get a message through: 'Next time you see our Prime Minister, Mr President, can you please pass on the message that Australians are suffering through a cost-of-living crisis.' They might do the same thing at 10 Downing Street. But the way through this, of course, is to accept that the local and domestic policies of this government are what are driving this crisis. Australians know it. Increasingly, they are seeing it, because there's no way around it. This is not a problem which has come about in the last 10 minutes, either. This is a problem which has effectively been driven by policymaking matters, like the extraordinary explosion in red tape in this country. We know this, and the people who know this best are our farmers. I've heard complaints on my travels over and over again about the difficulties that are now had. We heard it at the state level in Western Australia, with the heritage laws that were put in being emblematic of the problem of the explosion in red tape in this country. That's what you get when you blow up the bureaucracy and get city based bureaucrats making decisions and imposing regulatory burdens on the economy. That is one absolute, surefire way of causing a cost-of-living crisis. And that wasn't us, by the way. That has happened on the watch of this Prime Minister. The other problem, of course, is the war on energy and the net zero hoax. If ever asked what we could be doing—although the question has to be, 'What can we actually do?'—my response is, 'Drill, baby, drill.' We should be drilling everywhere we can. We should be drilling in the Great Australian Bight, all over the Top End— Senator ANTIC 269375 and in downtown Victoria, Senator Babet—wherever it may be—because cheap energy is a surefire way to get this economy moving, to put downward pressure on inflation and to put Australians back into the position where we can afford to do things like manufacture again in this country. We are effectively now at the behest of these global energy markets that we hear so much about. That hasn't just happened because it's happened; it's happened because of the war on cheap energy, and that is a serious problem. So what does this side of the chamber propose to do about it? If given the opportunity at the next election, this side of politics will support policy that's in the best interests of this country on every single level. We will support the resources industry; our farmers, who do so much heavy lifting; and those domestic manufacturers that are still in business at this point, and we'll make sure that they thrive and prosper here. We'll do what we always do: we'll back small business. The war on small business has got to be over. Ask a small-business person at the moment how they're tracking. With the IR laws that are to be passed by this parliament at some point, that's only going to get worse. This side of the chamber will do everything it can to support households and families across Australia, who are doing it tough at the moment. These hikes in inflation and other cost burdens to households and businesses will be right in the gunsight of this opposition. 17:22 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The days of blaming the war in Ukraine for inflation are over, or at least they should be. While I'll admit that the war in Ukraine has had some ripple effects, it was never true that overseas events were the major cause of this Labor government's economic woes. In fact, our government is the main architect of our nation's problems. Those on my left, on that side of the chamber, shouldn't take all the blame. The Libs had a part in that as well; we all know that. But the Labor government is in charge now, and they should be doing more. The government spends taxpayer money like it's endless, like it's free and like the debt never needs to be repaid. Well, guess what? It has to be repaid with interest. Australia's inflation problem is homegrown. Much of the problem is created right here in our nation's capital, in Canberra. Since the government clearly doesn't have a plan, allow me to make some simple suggestions that would immediately help to ease inflationary pressure. The government could begin by doing this: abandon net zero. It is a fetish—that's what it is—that has resulted in record high power prices. This one policy decision would immediately lower prices right across the economy. Here's another idea: slash the migration intake. Record immigration is making our housing crisis worse, increasing prices and increasing homelessness. It's pretty basic. I understand that net zero is an ideological tick that the government cannot shake, and it's also a way to fudge the books and make the numbers look better. So I'll make a third suggestion: why doesn't Treasurer Chalmers cut taxes, reduce levies and cut duties? He could start by cutting the fuel excise. How about that one? If you cut the transportation costs you immediately provide price relief on almost everything. We all know that; it is pretty simple stuff. I know what you are thinking—since when does a Labor government let its citizens keep more of their money? Since when? I will make one more suggestion. If the government wants to get inflation under control, it should ruthlessly cut red, green and black tape while deregulating as much of the economy as possible. If it did that, productivity and competition would improve, and inflationary pressures would ease for the long-term. In three minutes or so, I have four points to address inflation, which is more than what Treasurer Chalmers has done in 18 months, as far as I can tell. But I am guessing the government will not take up any of my suggestions, not because it hasn't thought of them—of course it has—but because this government is more committed to climate ideology, to taxation, to bureaucracy and to mass immigration, rather than being committed to helping struggling Australian families. 17:25 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant of the people of Queensland as Australia, if your mortgage payment has increased, if you have struggled to find a rental, if your power bill is higher than two years ago, if you nearly fainted at the checkout on your last grocery shop, listen in. All of these problems started right here in Parliament House, not overseas like the Albanese Labor government claims. Neither Labor nor Liberal can fix them. Both parties either created or turbocharged the problems facing Australians now. We see the Prime Minister is struggling in the polls and might need a plan to make it easier for Australian households and businesses. This is how One Nation, a party with the guts to say what people are thinking and needing, would fix it. Firstly, cut the insanely high overseas arrival program. In a country of just 26 million people, there are currently 2.3 million additional visa holders in Australia. All are fighting Australians for rentals. Australia's rental vacancy record is at a record low of 1.06 per cent. Experts consider three per cent to be tight. Additionally, the cashed up migrants who can afford to buy are pushing up house prices leaving Australia's first homebuyers in the dust. That is something that can be done today. Cut the overseas arrivals; that will get Australians out of tents and cars, back under roofs where they should be. Everything else is a Band-Aid until we cut the amount of people flooding into the country to get Australians back under affordable roofs. Secondly, ditch the United Nations World Economic Forum's net zero pipe dream. The Australian people have been lied to repeatedly, told that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity. That lie is easily exposed with many facts, especially one simple fact: with more wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro in the grid than ever before in Australia's history, electricity bills have never been higher. Even with the Labor government tipping in billions in more subsidies, there is no end in sight for Australians hoping they will get cheaper power bills. Remember only a year ago when now Prime Minister Albanese promised $275 off your power bill? Don't hold your breath. Don't look to the Liberals to help you there either. The Liberals and Nationals are equally committed to the net zero wind and solar pipe dream. That has only pushed power prices up over 20 years. That is all it has done. Only One Nation will ditch the net zero pipe dream that is wrecking households and businesses. We will restore cheap energy for all Australians. Thirdly, inflation. The former Liberal government oversaw the creation of over $500 billion in new money out of thin air. Or, as a Reserve Bank deputy governor told me at the time: electronic journal entries out of thin air. That is a major cause of the inflation we're dealing with today. One Nation would cut unneeded government spending and return the budget to surplus so we don't have to borrow or print a single extra dollar because that would drive up inflation again. Finally, cheap groceries. Australia has the richest farmland in the world yet it is tied up in red tape bureaucracy, green tape environmental excessive regulations that do nothing to protect the environment and blue United Nations policies controlling and restricting people's lives. Only this week the government will be passing legislation to steal water from farmers, water that could have grown veggies and beef for grocery shelves. Get rid of all the red, green and blue tape that does nothing to protect the environment. Let farmers do the job that farmers love doing—feeding and clothing Australia and the world. These are all obvious solutions: cut overseas arrivals to get Australia into houses with affordable rentals and mortgages; ditch net zero to get cheaper electricity; stop printing money to cut inflation; and let farmers farm to bring down grocery prices. That is how One Nation would get Australia back on track. Unlike the others, we have the guts to do it. We say it and we push it. 17:29 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I say to Senator Roberts: you don't have a monopoly on guts. We've got a bit of guts over here, too, Senator Roberts. I congratulate Senator McGrath in relation to this matter of public importance. My colleague from Queensland is absolutely right, as he often is, in bringing forward this MPI: Instead of blaming global uncertainty for higher-than-expected inflation figures, it is clear that rising domestic costs for housing, electricity and groceries demonstrate Australia's inflation problems are now home-grown and the Albanese Labor Government has no plan to make it any easier for Australian households and businesses. You don't have to listen to politicians' opinions with respect to this MPI to know that what Senator McGrath is saying is absolutely correct. Let me give you three examples. First, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Michele Bullock made a statement in relation to this in her speech at the Australian Business Economists annual dinner on 22 November 2023. You can find this online. If someone says, 'Senator Scarr has taken it out of context,' or 'He's done this or done the other,' you can read her speech online. This is what she said: … I would like to focus on one particular consideration for policy: that the remaining inflation challenge we are dealing with is increasingly homegrown … 'Increasingly homegrown': those are the words of Ms Michele Bullock, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, no less. She gives three pieces of evidence to back up her opinion. The first signal is that inflation is broadly based. That's her first piece of evidence. The second indicator that inflation is being driven by domestic demand is that it is increasingly underpinned by services. Her third piece of evidence—the third signal—is the continuation of limited spare capacity, most evident in high rates of labour utilisation. That leads to her conclusion—it's not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia: An important implication of this homegrown and demand-driven component to inflation is that getting inflation back to target will take time. They're the words of the Reserve Bank governor of Australia. The second piece of analysis I want to give you is, again, not the words of a politician. This analysis was by Michael Reed of the AFR, based on OECD data. This OECD data demonstrates that real household gross disposable income per capita—that's the amount of money Australians have in their pockets to pay for the goods and services that they need—the annual change to 30 June 2023 was minus 5.1 per cent in Australia. It was the worst in the whole of the OECD. No-one did worse. We did the worst. Do you get a gold medal for being the worst? I'm not sure, but we would have won it. Norway, minus 4.4; Sweden, minus 3.3; and Italy, minus 1.5: they all did better than us. Then there were those in positive territory: Hungary, 0.1; France, 1.6; UK, 2.2; US, 3.5; Chile, 5.6; and Spain, 6.0 per cent. So, in that 12-month period, Spain managed to achieve an increase in real household gross disposable income per capita of six per cent, while we achieved minus 5.1 per cent—the bottom of the OECD. Congratulations, Albanese government—the bottom of the OECD in the first 12 months of the Albanese Labor government. Minus 5.1 per cent: that's the result you got. I didn't make up those figures. Those are OECD figures. It's a damning result. It's a damning indictment of the performance of the Albanese Labor government. There is a third piece of evidence that I will refer to. I've referred to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, I've referred to objective OECD data and now I'm going to refer to the canary in the coalmine, the Salvation Army, in relation to what they're saying in the lead-up to their Christmas appeal: 'People are at breaking point—and it hurts.' Andrew said the survey also found that for those who do reach out to a charity this Christmas, almost half … will be doing so for the first time. This means that supporting the Salvos' Christmas Appeal is more important than ever. And it is indeed. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Thank you, Senator Scarr. The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 76 DOCUMENTS Consideration 76 COMMITTEES 76 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee 76 Report 76 17:36 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I present a dissenting report relating to the inquiry by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee into the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023. 17:36 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I seek leave to take note of the report. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Leave is granted for five minutes. Senator FAWCETT DYU I thank the Senate for leave to take note of this report. It's important because Australia has a problem with our defence procurement. The problem is that too many decisions are being made around procurement and upgrades without key questions being answered. For the young men and women who operate equipment on our behalf, the questions are: will it achieve the mission, and will it be safe while I'm operating the equipment? For the government, the question is: will it give us military response options which come with an acceptable level of project risk and cost? For the taxpayer, the question is: is it a good use of money? This doesn't apply to every procurement or upgrade. Many go well, but there are enough significant failures—and you can think back through history to things like the Seasprite debacle—where we see that it is not done well. This report highlights that the things that we saw 20 years ago, with Seasprite, have not been remediated in terms of defence's ability to consistently answer these questions. Now, more than ever, with the strategic circumstances we see, with the strategic update of 2020 and the Defence Strategic Review, where we have a requirement to buy a bigger scope and more complex equipment across cyber, land, space, air and sea domains, it's more important than ever that we can answer these questions as part of making these decisions. Why is this the case? It comes down to the fact that we need people who have the right skills, the task-specific competence, to make those assessments. Task specific means that people are the right fit for the job. Say you had two surgeons, a neurosurgeon and an orthopaedic surgeon, and both were very competent. If you had a brain problem, the orthopaedic surgeon is not the person you would want to do the work. What we see in defence, and it came out clearly in this report, is that often that distinction is not made, and people without the requisite skills, qualifications or relevant experience are tasked to provide assessments which they are not qualified to do. We see a lack of independence where people who are concerned about the cost or delays to a program schedule get to make decisions about how much risk assessment will be done and who will do it. Often that drives programs into a direction of failure, not being good value for money, not meeting the mission outcomes or, in some cases, not being safe. We also see a failure in transparency. We don't see that, when information is provided to capability managers or to projects, that is consistently passed up the chain to senior decision-makers. And there is a lack of accountability for people in the system when they do not do the right thing and apply the voluminous defence policy that exists in this area. There are no consequences for people who don't apply that. In fact, there is so much policy because every time this has been highlighted—and the ANAO highlighted these problems back in 2002 and again in 2015, and this same committee in 2012 highlighted concerns—there has been a flurry of activity, but it's led to more process, as opposed to outcomes. What we see, consistently, is that people who have the right qualifications, who are competent, with the task-specific competence, are either not tasked or not listened to. In some cases, we actually see capability managers on projects seeking to substitute the informed, objective advice of trained test organisations with the subjective opinion of operators or others, and the Defence system not recognising that those are two quite different sets of information and making decisions which are to the detriment of the young men and women who operate the equipment, to the government and to the taxpayer. We look at civil industry and we see similar patterns in things like the Boeing MAX aircraft. We were all horrified at the decisions that were made there to prioritise market access and sales ahead of safety. Yet we see schedule and a mission focus—ahead of safety—often being the drivers of some of the groups within Defence. What has the US done? They established, about 10 years ago, the department of operational test and evaluation, which actually provides that independence, the task-specific competence, the transparency and the accountability. And this bill, the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023, to establish the Defence Capability Assurance Agency, seeks to provide those same things. It provides assurance to the mums and dads, the war-fighters, the government and the taxpayer that our defence decisions are based on accurate assessments of risk on a consistent basis. I recommend that the bill be passed. 17:41 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I seek leave to make a contribution of no more than five minutes on this matter. Leave granted. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I rise to indicate that, as the Greens' defence spokesperson, I did not support, on behalf of my party, the majority report into the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill. I did that in circumstances where the evidence that was presented to the committee clearly established the need for far greater independent and transparent scrutiny of defence procurement. You could not sit through the evidence that we had the benefit of hearing, both in camera and in public, and you couldn't read the submissions that we had received in that inquiry, and not be deeply, deeply concerned about the lack of independence, the lack of rigour and, ultimately, the lack of value for money in the defence procurement system in this country. If you think, 'Well, that might be a marginal issue for federal politics,' then take the data that we had, for example, as of March 2021, where Defence reported that it had 16,000 active contracts, with a total value of over $200 billion. Just one Defence contract, for the Hunter frigates project, is valued with a lifetime contract in the order of some $45 billion. That project alone is, far and away, the largest single Commonwealth procurement project on the books. The only thing that may come to trouble it at some point, if it ever comes to pass, is the AUKUS submarine contract, which has not been entered into and which obviously would be greater than that. Imagine having $200 billion or more of procurement contracts on the go and not having rigorous, early, independent testing. Imagine that. Surely that couldn't happen. Yet that's exactly what we have in defence. Rather remarkably, that's been permitted to just roll on, year after year after year. If you wanted a clear case study in what can go wrong when you don't have an independent, rigorous test of the procurement process, look no further than the recent six-page mea culpa from Defence secretary Greg Moriarty in relation to the Hunter class procurement project. It is an extraordinary read. But perhaps one of the most extraordinary parts of that advice from the Defence secretary Moriarty, who has been the secretary since 2016 and was intimately involved in the second half of the Hunter procurement process, is a remarkable passage in that document in relation to the advice given to government on the procurement of the Hunter frigate project. Did I mention it was a $45 billion procurement, the single-largest Commonwealth procurement project? Mr Moriarty said, 'The process was appropriately planned and conducted but for completing a comparative evaluation and ranking of the tenders in a manner consistent with Defence procurement policy.' So it was appropriately planned and conducted except for the procurement assessment itself, except for the comparative evaluation and the ranking of the tenders in a manner consistent with the Defence procurement policy. What else is there in a Defence procurement policy apart from the comparative evaluation of the tenderers in accordance with policy? What else is there in a procurement process? You couldn't make this up. Worse still, when we tested what actually happens, time after time it appears that one element in Defence seeks to have a particular outcome and then when it gets independently evaluated by the incredibly competent people inside Defence whose job it is to independently evaluate the different platforms for safety and performance and defence doesn't like the independent assessment given by those incredibly capable structures inside Defence whose job it is, Defence just goes and seeks a different opinion but without any credible policy basis for it. They keep farming out for second opinions until they finally get someone who says, 'Yes, your original plan to acquire weapon A, B or C is fine. Go ahead and procure.' This bill may not be the perfect solution, but we believe it requires a serious scrutiny because business as usual is dangerous to taxpayers, dangerous to the public and dangerous to defence personnel. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 78 DOCUMENTS Treasury, Department Of Industry, Science And Resources, Department Of Climate Change, Energy, The Environment And Water, Department Of Education, Department Of Home Affairs 78 Order for the Production of Documents 78 17:47 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning multinational corporation tax reform, the Barossa gas project, higher education statistics and immigration detention. BILLS 78 BILLS Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 78

Disability Services and Inclusion Bill 2023

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

Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023

Returned from the House of Representatives 78 Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023, Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023, Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023, National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023 78

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023

Statutory Declarations Amendment Bill 2023

Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023

Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023

National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023

Assent 78 Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 78

Crown References Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 78 17:48 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 78 17:49 Senator CAROL F49 Tasmania BROWN (—) (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Last year, the historic reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II ended. As Sovereign for 70 years, her long life of duty, family, faith and service was an enduring presence in the lives of all Australians. Her Majesty made 16 visits to Australia between 1954 and 2011. She was the first reigning monarch to visit Australia. Queen Elizabeth II opened Parliament twice; statement Parliaments five times. She officially opened this building, Parliament House, in 1988. During her first royal tour, in 1954, she travelled some 16,000 kilometres by air. 33 separate flights. Making 207 separate trips in the car. Visiting more than 70 country towns. Her Majesty visited every Australian state and territory. Australians were deeply saddened by her passing. In the days following more than 3500 people lined up to sign her condolence book at Government House. Australians signed condolence books at government residences, electorate offices and from around the country online. Reflecting, on the contribution, service and example of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. A steadfast world leader who defined much of the 20th and 21st centuries. Her loss, marks a significant point in our cultural, political and legal history. Her son, His Majesty King Charles III, ascended to the throne in May this year. His Majesty has made 16 visits to Australia. Never has Australia had a sovereign with such a strong connection to our nation upon Coronation. We hope that we will soon welcome the new King and Queen back to Australia. The Prime Minister has extended an invitation to Their Majesties to visit Australia at any time. I hope we welcome them soon. As our Sovereign King Charles III is always welcome in the States and Territories of Australia. Although Her late Majesty's reign was long, Australia is no stranger to welcoming a new Sovereign. Queens and Kings have reigned over Australia since Federation. Our Constitution's life began with Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Our Constitution mentions her by name. Previous Parliaments made various changes to reflect her successors, King Edward VII, King George V, King Edward VIII, King George VI, Queen Elizabeth II and now His Majesty King Charles III. The Crown References Amendment Bill seeks to update references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in various acts of legislation to reflect the accession of the new Sovereign. Just as our nation marked the Coronation on 7 May 2023 with a National 21 Gun Salute by Australia's Federation Guard on the forecourt of Parliament House. This Parliament now recognises and congratulates King Charles III with this Bill. King Charles III has clearly stated his service to the people of the realms including Australia when he said on 9 September 2022: "Whatever may be your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love, as I have throughout my life." The Bill will recognise the Crown as is appropriate and in terms similar to other Commonwealth laws. There are many examples of office-holders being referenced by office in Commonwealth laws. The Governor-General is simply referred to as the "Governor-General" in Chapter two of the Constitution. Similarly, when we refer to Ministers, parliamentarians, and statutory office-holders, we honour the title of the office holder. The National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 establishes the offices of the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioners. The Future Fund Act 2006 establishes the office of the Chair of the Future Fund Board of Guardians. As noted in the explanatory memorandum for the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2006, circulated by the authority of the then Attorney-General Philip Ruddock MP: "It has been Commonwealth drafting practice since the early 1980's for statutory provisions to be drafted so as to avoid the use of gender-specific language." The Bill ensures consistency of references to the Sovereign across Australia's legislative framework. The Bill avoids the need for future amendments to legislation should a future Queen ascend the throne, and uses clarifying language that reflects Commonwealth practice. This approach is consistent with the previous government's Succession to the Crown Act 2015. That Bill gave effect to the then government's commitment to change the rules on succession to, and possession of, the Crown. This followed the agreement made during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011, between the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Realms. It changed the law relating to the effect of gender and marriage on Royal succession. Ending the system of male preference so that the order of succession is to be determined simply by order of birth. This Bill also introduces a new definition of "Senior Counsel" into the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, amending references to "Queen's Counsel" and "King's Counsel" in various acts of legislation. The purpose of this amendment is to remove any confusion where Commonwealth Acts and instruments make reference to "Queen's Counsel", "King's Counsel" or "Senior Counsel". This change reflects current practice at the Commonwealth level where a Senior Counsel is considered equal in status to King's Counsel (formerly Queen's Counsel). This change will also reflect current practice in the legal community. The Bill would only amend primary legislation, with Ministers expected to amend subordinate legislation within their own portfolios to reflect these changes. With the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III, this Bill brings an opportunity to introduce important updates to references throughout the Australian legislative framework. These changes reflect the end of the second Elizabethan Age and the beginning of a new age. A future which we as a nation will now share with our new King. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 80

Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 80 17:49 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania (): I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 80 17:50 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 delivers measures announced in the 2023-24 Budget to ease pressure and boost resilience for small businesses, reduce compliance costs, and encourage philanthropic giving. The Bill also extends the existing Global Infrastructure Hub income tax exemption and clarifies certain arrangements relating to superannuation. The first two Schedules of the Bill are another demonstration of this Government's commitment to supporting small business. Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to increase the instant asset write-off threshold to $20,000 until 30 June 2024, to improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for small businesses. Small businesses with aggregated annual turnover of less than $10 million will be able to immediately deduct eligible assets costing less than $20,000 from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024. The $20,000 threshold will apply on a per asset basis, so small businesses can instantly write off multiple assets. Assets costing $20,000 or more can be placed into the small business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter. Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to introduce the Small Business Energy Incentive to help small and medium businesses electrify and save on their energy bills. Up to 3.8 million businesses with aggregated annual turnover of less than $50 million will have access to a bonus 20 per cent tax deduction for eligible assets supporting electrification and more efficient use of energy. The new tax incentive applies from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024. Up to $100,000 of total expenditure will be eligible for the incentive, with the maximum bonus tax deduction being $20,000. The Small Business Energy Incentive will help small and medium businesses make investments like electrifying their heating and cooling systems, upgrading to more efficient fridges and installing batteries and heat pumps. This incentive helps ensure these businesses share in the benefits and opportunities of the energy transition that's now underway. Small businesses have a unique place in our economy and face unique challenges. With these two measures, this Government is backing them in once again. Schedule 3 to the Bill provides a pathway for up to 28 community foundations to be endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation as deductible gift recipients, subject to them complying with ministerial guidelines setting out the purposes for which they may use gifts. This will support foundations to undertake important work in their communities and contribute to the Government's goal of doubling philanthropy by 2030. Schedule 4 to the Bill amends the income tax law to specifically list Justice Reform Initiative Limited and Transparency International Australia as deductible gift recipients, and extends the existing listing for Australian Sports Foundation Charitable Fund and Victorian Pride Centre Ltd. This encourages philanthropic giving and supports the not-for-profit sector as donors may claim income tax deductions for donations to organisations with DGR status. Schedule 5 to the Bill extends the Global Infrastructure Hub's (GI Hub) income tax exemption for an additional year, from its current expiry date of 30 June 2023 until 30 June 2024. The extension will ensure that all contributions and other income of the GI Hub received during the period from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024 will be exempt from income tax. As the GI Hub is funded by contributions from G20 members, tax exempt status is granted to avoid subjecting these payments to income tax. This one-year extension will cover the GI Hub while it utilises current funding from G20 members. Schedule 6 to the Bill amends the income tax law with respect to general insurance to maintain broad alignment between accounting and tax. This avoids the income tax compliance burden on the general insurance industry that would be caused by the misalignment between the new accounting standard and existing tax requirements. Schedule 7 to the Bill replaces the current non-arm's length expense rules for superannuation entities. The measure introduces new arrangements for general expenses and better targets the application of these provisions. This will address the potential for disproportionate outcomes while maintaining the broader integrity of the superannuation tax system. Schedule 8 to the Bill clarifies that the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has jurisdiction to consider complaints that 'relate to superannuation'. This measure, by reversing the effect of the Federal Court's decision in MetLife v AFCA [2022] FCAFC 173, will provide consumers with greater access to external dispute resolution. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate adjourned. Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 81

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That this bill be now read a second time.

to which the following amendment was moved:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that environmental outcomes could be enhanced by expanding the purposes of the Water for the Environment Special Account to include funding for projects which could contribute to the 450 GL increase of water for environment use through complementary measures and incidental water savings, such as rule-based changes and changing infrastructure to support fish movement; and

(b) calls on the Government to work with the Basin States to deliver enhanced environmental outcomes through complementary measures".

17:50 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria As I said before I was put into continuation, we have a situation where the Darling/Barka is absolutely choking to death, with not enough water flowing through it, whereas at the same time the Murray-Darling is drowning because there is too much water being put through it. If you go and have a look at the Barmah Forest right now, it is two or three feet underwater. This is a red-gum forest—it needs to be flooded from time to time—but to be kept under water simply to force water down the Murray River is killing that forest. It has already killed all the undergrowth, which means that there are no echidnas there, no goannas and likely no koalas in those trees. The environmental impacts that this amendment to the bill is trying to achieve aren't necessarily going to be achieved simply through buybacks. While we have a river system that is diverse in geography, it is also terribly diverse temporally—that is, part might be in flood one time and in drought another. As Dorothea Mackellar said in 1904, I believe, we are a land of droughts and flooding planes, no more so than in the Murray-Darling basin That is why simply sticking to a monolithic, dull, blunt instrument to try and supply water down through the Murray-Darling system isn't smart policy. Yes, it buys water, but that doesn't necessarily means it gets to the place you need it to get to or is used for the reason it needs to be used, which could be flood plain regeneration or stopping bank erosion. If you go up and look at parts of the Murray and the amount of water flowing through, the amount of bank erosion is quite frightening. That means it is likely that the platypus that were there that had their nests in those banks have had to seek shelter elsewhere, if they've managed to survive. What is the alternative to a blunt instrument? I'm glad you asked. We need to look at alternatives to do this. This is simply a constrained market, and we need to look at in those terms, exactly the same as the gas market, the national electricity market and commodity markets. Markets manage to use different instruments to solve different problems. This is where I would like to thank Minister Plibersek for having the intelligence, temerity and bravery to sit down with me and find different ways to solve what are not one single problem. They are diverse problems that need diverse solutions to be achieved. I won't go into the engineering parts that have been put forward because they have been debated in this place and in rural newspapers almost every day. Where we've got to with this legislation is the ability not simply to rely on buybacks but for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to be able to use other instruments. What instruments, you ask? Instruments such as leasing water. A large part of the damage of buybacks is the fact that the water is bought in perpetuity. The people at home might not know that when a farmer sells his entitlement to the water back to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority it's not for one year or for two years—it's in perpetuity. What effect does that have on a farm? I know there are a few farmers in the chamber right now who will tell you—if you take water away from a farm, it's no longer a farm. Yes, the farmer might be able to take the money he gets from the buyback and turn it into some other economic activity. I know of one example where the farmer wants to build an abattoir. That does make some sense, especially if he's given a grant to go along with that to be able to proceed and to promote the economic development of that particular area. But there can't be an abattoir on every block. And if you look at some of these constraint areas, once one farmer takes a buyback then the rest of the region is going to suffer and pay even more for their water simply because of the constraints that it's going to put on the system. A farmer, after all is usually a small-businessman. There are some large ones too, we know that. But the small-businessmen that I care about need to have the flexibility to be able to manage their farm in the way that they see best. They may see leasing their water for 12 months as a smart thing to do, and they can do that currently through the water market. But what about if they want to look longer term? A farmer being able to set the lease term for leasing back water gives them and the CEWH—or the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder—flexibility to be able to do the things both of them need to be able to do—that is, run a business and provide water to the environment. That term for leasing back the water could be 12 months, three years, 10 years or 30 years. But it's through a negotiation—based on pricing, what premium they will get and when the water is needed—that you get real flexibility in the system and a system that is able to cope with the droughts and floodplains that we mentioned before. We saw in 2022—and even in this year—more water go down the Murray—and the darling, for part of it—than it can cope with. That says to me that you need flexibility in the system because if, in a flood year, you push more water down the system, you are just going to flood more towns, homes and businesses. I don't see the point in that. In my view would be we should be having something like a rolling five or 10 year average, based off scientific principles that says: 'There's sufficient groundwater and sufficient surface water. We know what the flows are at various points along the rivers. We now know that we need to contract for more water or less.' Rather than pushing water through constraints like the Barmah Choke, which just kill forests and biodiversity, you get not only the opportunity for farmers to do more farming, which means more food and fibre for us all to eat and wear, but also the environmental needs that you are looking for. The hardest part about this is if you just stick with buybacks, it is going to damage the economies in these communities—of that I have no doubt. I've been up and down the Hume Highway and up and down along the river visiting all the communities, and I've spoken to enough people, communities and farmers, to know that they are all absolutely petrified that the damage done from previous buyback periods is going to be visited on them again. However, they were thrilled to know that, if there is a leasing arrangement, they'll have the flexibility to do what they need to do. They know, with that, the social and economic impact on their communities is going to be lessened. But here's the thing: the government wanted to take the socioeconomic impact test out of the legislation. I'm happy to tell the chamber that I will be moving an amendment to keep that socioeconomic test in there. I also foreshadowed that I will be moving a second reading amendment that says that leasing will be a feature of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan moving forward. Why am I doing these things? Because it protects the river. It protects biodiversity. It protects communities. It protects farmers. It is a far smarter way to run this system. It's a constrained system. It's a system that floods and has droughts. We're going into a potential drought year. It is a far smarter way to build flexibility into a system. It's just doing in this marketplace what happens in every other marketplace. You use tools at the right time, in the right place and for the right reasons. For that reason, I think leasing is going to be very, very good for the Murray-Darling Basin system. 18:01 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Sadly, I have been in this place long enough to have been here when the abomination that is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was put in place. I've watched that plan decimate communities, industries, towns and families right throughout my home state of Victoria. It was the sad fact in Victoria, because we had a very highly regulated irrigation system, that it was our water that the Labor government back then, when Penny Wong was the water minister, could enter into our communities for. If you purchased Victorian water, you were actually guaranteed of getting water because of the highly regulated nature of our system. And so, today, when we know over 90 per cent of the water originally envisaged under the plan has been recovered, over half of it comes from regional Victoria. We have paid the price for this plan. Despite it encompassing four states and one territory, it is the Victorian regional communities which have paid the very worst price under this plan. That is why the Labor government in Victoria does not support this piece of legislation. It does not support the water minister going back into the market with forced buybacks and does not support the 450-gigalitre political solution that was arrived at back in the day to get certain members in this chamber across the line. It was never meant to be part of the total plan. It was always a political solution. We have a Labor Party that doesn't understand the regions, doesn't care about the regions, wouldn't know the Barmah Choke if it fell over it and has not sat down in the pubs and footy clubs of Kerang, Cobram, Swan Hill, Mildura, Echuca and Shepparton. Eighty per cent of our national pear crop comes from Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley. Horticulture and dairy industries in regional Victoria have done the heavy lifting in this water recovery task. It says everything about the government and their attitude to those nine million of us that don't live in capital cities that they cannot wait to give our farmers and our regional communities a Christmas present that will devastate our productive capacity and will devastate families. I was taken to task for talking about the mental health impact this policy has had over the last decade on these communities. Hard men, grown men and proud men were brought to tears and worse, and it will be the same with this because it is an incredibly blunt, pathetic response to achieving environmental outcomes. The truth is that a decade ago when we set this thing up we didn't have the science and the telemetrics on our creeks and rivers—the measurement tools to understand how best to water environmental assets didn't exist—so we thought it was all about a base number: 'If we get this many gigalitres down the river then all the Ramsar wetlands will be tickety-boo.' No, they won't. We have pushed too much water down river and it's actually destroying environmental assets as a result. Guess what the scientists say? 'Don't push so much water down the river, because there are natural constraints. Let it sit longer and be slower. That's what our kind of environment needs.' That's what our environment actually needs. Senator Farrell I0N Ten years you let it sit there. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I'm very happy to hear Senator Farrell, the trade minister. He's going to have to explain why our dairy industry is devastated and why we're not going to be exporting grapes, almonds, apples, pears—horticulture galore—and wine from these regions that his party is seeking to kill. You can't grow anything, Senator Farrell, without water. We have the most efficient irrigators in the world. They're drip-feeding their permanent plantings. The sad reality is—and we heard it in Senate inquiry after Senate inquiry—that the scientists know that measuring the health of the river isn't just about the number of gigalitres pushed down it over a time frame; it's about fish stocks and about leaving water longer in certain places and less long in others. They're all unique aspects because they are unique environmental assets right up and down our rivers. That has nothing to do with actual people who live there. It appears that our worst fears are being realised before our eyes. Today Labor has bowed down to the Greens to ensure that their ideological bill that will destroy regional communities is passed through the Senate today. Those guys do not have a dirty deal that they're not prepared to do between the two of them. Senator Farrell I0N John Howard proposed this. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Farrell, Senator McKenzie has the right to be heard in silence. All interjections are disorderly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Farrell, you don't have the call. I didn't give you the call. Do you have a point of order? Senator Farrell I0N Senator McKenzie has to start telling the truth about— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Farrell, resume your seat. That's not a point of order. Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 If telling the truth in this chamber becomes the new standard for the Labor Party, I look forward to them following their own example, because what we are subjected to in question time after question time and in committee stage after committee stage on key policy and legislative arrangements that we're putting through this place— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 They have a psychology that is anti truth telling. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator McKenzie, you may resume your speech. Senator McKENZIE 207825 There was no point of order? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 No, there was not. Nice try. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Okay. You can tell you're getting under the trade minister's skin when you start talking about the hypocritical approach this government has to growing prosperous, safe, sustainable regional communities and industries. He's very happy to get the business class ticket to the EU and to swan around Europe talking up a big trade proposal, but at home their legislative agenda seeks to destroy the very men and women and the communities that sustain them that provide you that opportunity, Senator Farrell— Senator Farrell I0N I'm looking after them. You didn't. You ignored these people. Senator McKENZIE 207825 And provide Minister Watt—the joke of an agriculture minister this country, sadly, has— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator McKenzie, can you resume your chair for a second. Senator Farrell, you have been asked to stop interjecting. Senator McKenzie has the right to be heard in silence. Senator McKenzie, if you could direct your comments through the chair. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. It is very disappointing the agriculture minister and the trade minister were rolled in cabinet on standing up for these communities, clearly. If they really cared about productive food capacity in the regions, they would not be supporting this bill and they would be standing up for our great primary producers. Communities across the Murray-Darling basin have done it tough under the challenging conditions of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. There are many senators on this side of the chamber who have sat down in these communities and sought to understand it. In my home state of Victoria our dairy and horticulture industries have done the heavy lifting in meeting the targets of the plan. More than 50 per cent of the water recovered has come from Victoria. No more should come from the state of Victoria, but the Minister for the Environment and Water is going to roll her own Labor state, which is valiantly standing against this ridiculous policy, this cruel policy. Our farmers have had no choice but to produce more with less water, and they've risen to the challenge. We should be proud of that instead of taking the stick to them once again. Enough is enough. Without water there is no ability to grow food, provide well-paying local jobs, sustain the future of our regional towns and communities and provide Senator Farrell with a platform to negotiate future free trade agreements with our fabulous primary produce. The Albanese Labor government is backed in by the Greens and the regional Independent for Indi, Helen Haines. What a shameful, woeful regional member Helen Haines is. She voted to decimate her own communities. The people across Indi know she is more interested in currying favour with the likes of the Greens from Melbourne and Tanya Plibersek from Sydney than in standing up for her primary producers. I am confident they will throw her out. Today we have seen the true colours of the Labor Party under the Albanese government. States came together and said, 'We understand the pain that this plan implementation has provided our primary producers, and do you know what? You cannot take that additional water without convincing us that there won't be detrimental social and economic impacts.' That's it; do no harm. I often hear the Greens talk about the do-no-harm principle, the precautionary principle. That is all this is for the humans, the stock, the productive capacity, the future. If you want that additional water, just prove it's not going to do social and economic harm, but they don't care. We know buybacks decimate and destroy our communities. A 2022 independent study found that the purchase of 750 gigalitres would cost the southern basin, that's Victoria for the non-giga literates—that's fine, because it can be complex—$900 million in agricultural production per year and tens of thousands of jobs. Talk a big game on jobs, but not if you live in the regions. You actually don't care, because tens of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill, because if you have not modelled the impact of this legislation on our communities you will be held to account in this chamber this week. The research backs up what we already knew. When you take water away from producers, their business dries up. When farmers are forced to shut down it affects the whole community. It's not just about a farmer receiving an economic benefit for the water you've purchased. It flows right through the fabric of the community that the farmer is a part of. It's not just the farmers who experience devastation. It's the local food producers, the manufacturers, the dairy processors, the abattoirs and the food processors such as SPC in my home state. It's the milk truck drivers. I look forward to hearing Senator Sterle and Senator Sheldon stand up for the Transport Workers Union workers who work for those companies. They don't care. They won't be making a contribution on this bill and standing up for those TWU members and other truck drivers. People will stop going to the local supermarket. They won't buy supplies at the CRT in town. Kids will move from the local school, the town will begin to diminish, the teachers will leave, you won't need so many coppers and you won't need to have your hospital so well staffed. That is the decline, and it is based on the decision that this chamber is choosing to make today. The aspirations of Labor, the Greens and Helen Haines are not aligned with reality, and there is no regard for the lives this legislation will destroy. The VFF's water council chair, Andrew Leahy, said: "Buybacks kill rural communities, it's plain and simple, I've seen it first-hand in my hometown." "We'll have less kids in our schools, less doctors and nurses and less community volunteers in the CFA and our local football teams,"— and I'm sure he also meant to say netball. Even the Victorian Labor government understood this. The Victorian Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions did their own analysis on the impact of this devastating legislation on the Victorian Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District, and they emphatically concluded the buybacks would have 'substantial impacts to local communities and disproportionately affect the dairy industry.' But we're expected to believe that no-one is going to be hurt from this. This will be another net zero consequence. But it's only a net zero consequence because it's a net zero consequence to anybody you care about or anybody that has political value to you. This government is more prepared to stick up for Hamas supporters than it is to stick up for those of us that live in the Murray Darling Basin. Senator Farrell, shame on you—more prepared to stick up for Hamas sympathisers than you are to stick up for the productive capacity of those of us who live in the basin, prepared for our lives to be destroyed and our communities to disappear. The report, which is a Labor's government report, I remind us, also found that a 450-gigalitres water buyback in the southern basin is estimated to result in—and here are the actual facts the Labor Party won't tell you, but the Victorian Labor Party has done its homework. There will be $270 million a year of net loss in gross value of our ag production, 900 jobs affected and lost. Farming practices will continue to evolve to account for less reliable water availability, and it's likely the number of farms and the amount of land used for dairy farming in the GMID will continue to decline. If this Labor Party were serious about creating good water policy for people, for industry, for the environment, for the river, it would do the following. It would support extending the deadlines for the implementation of the Basin Plan. It would retain the cap on buybacks. It would not enable open tender buybacks used to recover the 450. It would say no to the 450 because it is not a neutral impact on our people. It would broaden the definition of water recovery. Imposing— (Time expired) 18:17 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland With the exception of the need to support extended deadlines and the greater transparency and compliance measures in the water market, you can bet the farm that One Nation will not be supporting this bill. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 is gambling with the farms in a region that produces more than $22 billion worth of Australia's food and fibre, gambling with the fate of this production in the Murray-Darling Basin while stacking the odds against it. I shouldn't have to remind the Senate that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is supposed to be a balanced scheme supporting better environmental outcomes in addition to ensuring sustainable irrigation industries and regional economies. The balance is thrown out with this bill. First things first: the Basin Plan has already recovered an enormous amount of water for environmental flows—more than 2,000 gigalitres per year, which is the equivalent of more than four Sydney Harbours. These environmental flows have had a positive effect, according to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder at Senate estimates in 2020. The Basin Plan has worked, as the recent drought did not result in the same terrible impacts and the risk of the end of the river system. We see no need to recover more water from irrigators only to see it flow to the end of the system where it will evaporate uselessly from the lower lakes at a rate of 1,000 gigalitres per year. They weren't freshwater lakes before those barrages were built in the 1930s, and it's past time this place stops pretending otherwise. We see no need for the recovery of the additional 450 gigalitres per year called for in the environmental special account chapter of the Water Act. One Nation knows this water doesn't need to be forced from irrigators. The South East Drainage System in South Australia could supply a good deal of it to reduce hypersalinity in the Coorong. Innovative projects which allow irrigators to keep farming while producing positive environmental outcomes are the kind of water reform we would be prepared to support, and we'll be moving an amendment to this effect. That's what we want to see in the basin: investment in projects that underpin the economic sustainability of irrigation and river communities. It's what the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism in the Basin Plan is about: projects which improve the efficiency of delivering water, offsetting the amounts which would be bought from irrigators. Almost 1,300 gigalitres per year has been bought directly from irrigators for the Basin Plan. We were told that water would only be purchased from willing sellers. The reality was that much of this water was bought from desperate sellers at the lowest price possible. The effect on river communities which relied on irrigation was terrible. Thousands of people lost their jobs and river communities lost some of their best and brightest people as industries closed down. The Productivity Commission's Murray-Darling Basin Plan: implementation review 2023 confirmed this. The interim report said: Water purchased by the Australian Government to meet commitments under the Basin Plan has had negative socio-economic impacts on some Basin communities. … … … … there have been negative socio-economic flow-on effects in some small irrigation-dependent communities, particularly following major irrigators selling large parcels of entitlements. Some Basin communities saw agricultural employment fall rapidly, without offsetting growth in other employment areas … In communities throughout the basin, from Dirranbandi to Shepparton to Waikerie, local business closed down as their communities and economies were demolished with taxpayer assistance. Schools and essential services like banking also closed down in response. The irrigators who stayed found themselves victims of the so-called Swiss cheese effect—forced to pick up the costs once borne by the irrigators who sold their water to the Commonwealth. This was confirmed by the Central Irrigation Trust in South Australia's Riverland region, which told the committee inquiry into this bill: We lost 180 farms across our network in no planned way. They left, and those that remained had to pick up the additional costs and will continue to pick that up into the future. When you look at the Central Irrigation Trust's multi-million-dollar electricity bills, which must be paid to pump and pressurise the water in their system, you might begin to appreciate the enormous cost of water reform that will not end with the completion of the Basin Plan. Labor and the Greens don't care about these impacts. They despise farmers and they despise the country communities which do not vote for them. That's why they want to remove the cap on water buybacks with this bill. That's why they want to use buybacks to recover the additional 450 gigalitres. And that's why they're effectively removing the positive or neutral socioeconomic test on recovering this water, because they could not care less what happens in electorates where their vote is in the toilet. One Nation opposes all of it. We will never support more buybacks from desperate irrigators because we've seen for ourselves the devastation they've caused in river communities. We will not support any change to the cap on buybacks. We will not support any reversal of the outcomes of the Northern basin review, which confirmed the negative socioeconomic impacts of water reform and sensibly reduced water recovery by 70 gigalitres. We will not support any removal of watering down of the socioeconomic test on water recovery. This was put in place to help ensure the economic and social sustainability of river communities because it was acknowledged water reform was most definitely going to cause harm—and it did cause harm. You can see it for yourself—from Saint George to Menindee to Mildura, right across the Murray-Darling Basin—in the clothes shops, on the main streets, in the dead orchards and vineyards, in the deserted schools and, tragically, in local cemeteries. Labor and the Greens deliberately caused this harm. They are responsible for the cost in lives and livelihoods their anti-farming policies have created. And now they've teamed up to deliberately cause more of this harm to the farmers and country communities they hate. In the long term, it will do little for the environmental health of the river but it will make our grocery bills a lot more expensive. This bill also seeks to implement some changes recommended in the Water market reform: final roadmap report. The value of water traded in the basin continues to rise every year and is approaching $5 billion annually. I have always had strong concerns about the separation of water from land and how this enables speculation and profiteering. I have always had strong concerns about foreign ownership of Australian water for trading purposes and the lack of transparency around it. It's estimated that about 20 per cent of traded Murray-Darling water is foreign owned. It's only an estimate, because the facts are being hidden from the Australian people. In one important aspect, I support water trading between irrigators. The basin is a big place in which some parts can experience low flows and others can experience higher water availability at the same time. Water trading allows some flexibility during times of drought, improving the sustainability and resilience of farm businesses and irrigation industries, but there must be some limits. One Nation wants an annual cap on the value of water trades. We want to make sure that only irrigators with thirsty crops are able to trade it as needed. We support greater transparency measures, compliance and enforcement powers, and information sharing powers involving the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Bureau of Meteorology. We strongly support provisions that stop insider trading and market manipulation. We support broader information about trades being collected and published, but we note this measure falls short because you would not identify who owns the water being traded, including foreign owners. I know, because I have tried to obtain this information only to have the door shut in my face. The very idea that foreigners own our water, our primary farming land or any property in Australia is obscene to most Australians. One of the largest water entitlements in the basin, Cubbie Station, is majority owned by a Chinese company. They control enough water to fill more than 90 per cent of Sydney Harbour. Does China allow Australians reciprocal property and water ownership rights in China? Of course not, and this is fundamentally wrong and unfair. The other issue of water ownership goes to the Greens's deal with Labor on this bill. While I don't have an issue with some existing environmental water being used for Indigenous cultural purposes, I outright oppose water being taken from irrigators and just given to Aboriginal land corporations to make money. This industry, which is rife with corruption and nepotism that prevents support from getting to the people who really need it, already gets up to $40 billion per year from taxpayers. That's more than enough. As I said during the referendum debate, Australia is a democracy where there can only be equal rights for all and special rights for none. It's the only way that's free and the only way that's fair. We won't be supporting this deal between Labor and the Greens, the parties which are attacking Australian farmers on multiple fronts. Seven-hundred gigalitres—that's the bare minimum that will be taken directly from irrigators and river communities if this disgusting deal sneaks through the Senate. This will absolutely decimate irrigators and river communities, which have already sacrificed too much in water, jobs, businesses and lives to the Basin Plan. Enough is enough. Labor-Greens environmental Marxism, which puts the interests of fish and frogs and birds and trees ahead of Australian human beings, must be held accountable for the disasters it is creating. It must be stopped before it's too late. We have the opportunity here to show farmers and regional Australians that they still have some support in this parliament. One Nation stands with our farmers, with our irrigators and the basin communities against this direct attack on their very survival. 18:30 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I rise to speak against the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 in its current form. The coalition cannot support this bill without amendments. The proposed bill is a rewrite of the original Basin Plan, which, importantly, was intended to balance economic, social and environmental outcomes. This legislation involves a cap on buybacks. The minister has proven that Labor puts its own lazy interests first. It is lazy, lazy policy. As a senator for South Australia, I'm particularly focused on the impacts of this bill on river communities in South Australia and those that rely on the river to exist. I'm talking about many communities along the river in South Australia, like Renmark, Berri, Loxton and Waikerie in the Riverland, and Murray Bridge and Mannum in the Mid Murray, right through to towns along the Coorong and Lower Lakes to Goolwa, near the Murray mouth. These communities are the lifeblood of my state, and contribute to making South Australia the great state that it is. These communities support farmers, irrigators, tourism operators and service providers. And then there are the workers that they employ. Remember the workers that Labor say they stand for? Or maybe they're just not the workers you care about, Labor, because they're not likely to be union affiliated workers. The people in these industries that rely on the river matter to me. Where is the work? Where is the modelling that tells of the social and economic impact of Labor's grand Basin Plan? Why is the cost of this bill undisclosed? As Australians continue to hurt under Labor's rising cost of living, this decision by the Greens and Labor will only add to that pain. We will all see the impact at the supermarket checkout. Remember the cost-of-living pressures? Less water to grow and produce fruit and vegetables, cotton and farm cattle, will affect the amount of production, which will, in turn, increase the value and cost of commodities which will be paid for by Australian families. Labor almost always forgets about the flow-on effects. And Labor ignores the end users. Between 20 November 2022 and February this year, South Australian river communities were affected by the largest flood since 1956 and the third-highest flood ever recorded in South Australia. There was an unprecedented number of impacted homes, shacks, businesses and infrastructure. River communities are still recovering. Labor may not have seen or heard them from inner city Sydney, Melbourne or suburban Adelaide, but they were hurting. I saw the houses along the river boarded up, some underwater, and others just trying to stop the flooding. I saw the farmers taking their stock to higher ground and losing vital fodder to the river, even for some time after the water had receded. River Murray tourism was particularly impacted, like the popular river houseboat industry and environmental tourism that takes canoeing tours. Those who could survive are just getting back on their feet. Without the Victorian Labor government signing up to the new Basin Plan agreement underpinning this bill, it's not really a basin plan. Extended time frames to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan are welcome. However, this Labor government's removal of the social and economic neutrality test on recovering the additional 450 gigalitres and resorting to buybacks is a handbrake on that bipartisanship. It was not the coalition who wrote in the Basin Plan that it must only be pursued if it then delivers positive or neutral social and economic outcomes. That was actually Labor. The coalition, in government, honoured the criteria written by now Labor minister Tony Burke in 2012 and worked with the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, at the time made up evenly of Labor and coalition members, to develop the social and economic test which was then agreed in 2018. But everything, it seems, is different when Labor is in government. Ponder this example of Minister Burke speaking on ABC Country Hour in October 2012, leaving no-one in any doubt as to what the Basin Plan was about, when he said: 'The rule is that the additional 450 gigalitres can only happen through methods that have no downside, social or economic.' So that's the rule, and that's why none of this money could be used for general tender buyback rounds or anything like that, because the authorities reached a very strong conclusion that, if you did it through a general buyback, you'd get downsides for the local community. So what's changed other than who's in charge of the Treasury benches? That would be what you call a backflip. This government's bill is a major rewrite of the Basin Plan. It includes a last-minute deal with the Greens to get it over the line by including $100 million for First Nations people to participate in water negotiations. There is no strategy or plan as to how the money will be spent. The coalition had committed funding to specifically include Indigenous people and organisations when consulting about water. $40 million was placed in trust while an agreement was to be reached about distribution. Well, guess what? With 18 months of Labor being in government, that money has not been distributed. It still sits in trust. But that's an enticing number, $100 million. It looks like a good headline. But it has not even moved to the people it's intended to benefit. Labor has no plan and no action strategy but to announce more taxpayer funding with no accountability. Announcements and outcomes are two totally different things. Labor's supposed Basin Plan fundamentally ignores the intent of the Basin Plan agreed to in 2012: to deliver a plan which would not destroy the social and economic fabric of communities and would deliver environmental outcomes, not just numbers on a page. The then Labor government knew that buybacks hurt basin communities. We on this side of the chamber are more than concerned about the detrimental impact of water buybacks on regional communities; the Greens and Labor are obviously not. By creating a new classification of water recovery under the 450 gigalitres against which the social and economic test will not apply, the minister is effectively admitting that buybacks hurt communities, but the Greens and Labor don't care. If you don't fit their ideology, you just don't exist. The government say they will compensate communities that are impacted, but they won't say how, how the impacts will be assessed, what social and economic benchmarks will be used, or what the compensation looks like. The real answer to this legislation is that buybacks are this government's first, second, last and only option. The millions of megalitres of water which has already been recovered for the environment over three major reforms over the past 30 years is actually having a positive impact. An exceptional combination of wet conditions plus careful use of water for the environment has created optimal circumstances for waterbird breeding across the Murray Darling Basin in 2021 and 2022, and that continues in 2023. Despite rivers running dry in the basin from 2017 to 2020—a record-breaking drought—South Australia received more than its base flow in each year of that drought. The current Basin Plan is working. With an investment in river management and complementary measures such as dealing with barriers to fish passage, invasive species like carp, cold water pollution and increasing in-stream fish habitat, we can expect to see environmental outcomes maximised while we maintain healthy and socially and economically viable communities. As a South Australian senator, those communities are important to me, and they should be important to every single Australian. They matter. They may be downstream, but they matter. And they rely on the river because it matters to them. Sadly, this rewrite will not assist any of those communities that rely on the river. 18:39 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. I've spoken in relation to water policy many times over the years in this chamber. In fact, one of the first bills that I contributed on as a new senator in this place was the Water Bill 2007. I was proud to be sitting as a new backbencher on the government side in 2007 as Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard brought forward the water bill. It was a time of critical drought and water shortages which placed immense pressure on my home state, South Australia, and on so many communities right around the Murray-Darling Basin. The Water Act, as it passed through this place, has proven to be one of the most important and most successful—I'll come back to that—but also one of the most difficult reforms that I have seen through this place. In many of the contributions, I'm sure I have reflected on the great old Mark Twain quote: Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over. That is well and truly evident when it comes to the Murray-Darling. It has not been evident just in the last couple of years. It has not been evident just in the last decade or two. It has been evident throughout the European settlement history of Australia. Throughout that period, the federation debates were interspersed with arguments about how water is treated in our Constitution and whether there would be a role for the Commonwealth in leading water policy—particularly the management of the Murray-Darling Basin—or whether management would be retained by the states. In those debates, it was ultimately resolved to leave it with the states. The debates at that stage were more about river transport and navigation up and down our river systems. But, of course, as the years went by, debates turned to the management of the river systems, flow regulation, issues of water storage, irrigation licensing and entitlements and, ultimately, environmental management. Throughout that time, the state led and state empowered approach embedded in our Constitution led to slightly more cooperative arrangements between the states, then to federal structures being put in place and then, finally, in 2007, to the Water Act being legislated through this parliament. It provided for a federally legislated architecture, melding Commonwealth law under international obligations with different federal agreements and maintaining certain residual state powers and responsibilities. The Murray-Darling Basin legal framework and regulatory framework is a complex web and intersection. It requires, still, the cooperation of all of the different jurisdictions involved: the Commonwealth and the five different state and territory jurisdictions. It is on that score that I see the biggest concern and the biggest failing in the way the Albanese government has approached the bill that is before us. That's because their approach has lost the support of all of those jurisdictions. In losing Victoria's support and willingness to cooperate—and in imperilling it, potentially, after today's announcement of further amendments with the Australian Greens—they imperil that support from other states. We risk, potentially, seeing one of the great reforms and initiatives of Australian environmental management, water management and agricultural management undone because of the critical framework of cooperation between jurisdictions falling apart. Why do I say this is and has been a successful reform, when all I hear from those opposite, from the Greens and from elsewhere, is a tale of alleged nondelivery? Unfortunately, for political purposes, there has been a conscious decision over the last couple of years to focus on a relatively small additional component of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that was not part of the plan recommended and adopted but was an addendum to the plan at the time. When the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, as required under the Water Act, was finally brought to this parliament as a piece of regulation, it recommended some 2,750 gigalitres—or, for those who don't do giga-babble, some 2,750,000,000 litres of water entitlement—being recovered for environmental flows across the Murray-Darling Basin. That had been a long, scientifically driven process, one informed by community consultation, seeking to try to strike the balance of ensuring that extractions from our nation's largest river system were sustainable for the long term and that we still had the farming, agriculture and food and fibre industries that depend upon the river viable into the future. That development of the plan saw much angst, and I lived through much of that angst and visited many of the communities both in my home state and upstream during that time. And during that time it became very clear to me, when I visited those communities, that you've got to be willing to say difficult things downstream and upstream and be consistent in all places. I've stood in Griffith, in Deniliquin and in upstream communities in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland, and explained why South Australia's Lower Lakes deserve to have freshwater flow, why they should not be purely saltwater and why the river should not be cut off at the end of the channel of the River Murray. I've equally stood in Goolwa, in Adelaide and in river communities in South Australia, and justified the existence of crops, like rice and cotton and other seasonal plantings, that provide a unique addendum to the permanent plantings and enable more efficient use of water and, from that, more efficient agricultural production across the basin. None of those have been easy conversations either downstream or upstream, but it's about being consistent with all those communities and trying to explain the different perspectives that exist. Another great Mark Twain quote when it comes to water management is, 'Wherever you stand on a river system, everyone upstream is a thieving bastard and everyone downstream is an undeserving swine.' That is in some ways a reflection on human nature. But, importantly, when you are looking to try to share a finite resource like river flows in a water management regime, you've got to ensure that you are being upfront with all about the environmental needs such as those of the Lower Lakes or about the economic realities such as the benefits of seasonal plantations like rice or cotton. So the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was adopted, with its 2,750-gigalitre target. But, as a compromise in the politics of the time, there was also an addendum of some additional 450 gigalitres being sought—but with strict conditions applied, particularly as they related to there being no socio-economic detriment to communities as a result of the acquisition of that water. It was a balanced negotiation between the state government of my home state, who wanted the extra water, and the state governments of other states, who wanted to ensure that communities didn't face the peril of losing their economic basis, their economic lifeline of water, to sustain those communities. Of course, the first task—the biggest task, the overwhelming task—was to recover the 2,750 gigalitres and to ensure that that adjustment, as had been scientifically recommended under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to ensure sustainable extractions and river flows, was actually achieved. Sadly, nobody seems to talk about that now. The Water Act established a new entity known as the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. That entity, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, now has some 2,800, nearly 2,900, gigalitres of entitlement available to it. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder holds 2,888,695,000 litres of water entitlement. That entitlement has been recovered by governments—Labor and coalition—from farmers and from irrigation communities through system upgrades, investment in infrastructure and some buybacks, but it has been recovered in a massive total sum. The difficulty of that adjustment has been huge and has come at huge cost to the Commonwealth budget. But we should be celebrating the fact that that has been achieved and that that major bipartisan, cross-jurisdictional undertaking has seen a massive amount of water recovered for the Murray-Darling Basin that is now actively managed by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, each and every day of the year, in their decisions and their actions to create environmental watering events that support fish breeding, bird breeding, landscape enhancement and a whole range of crucial environmental outcomes that do provide, for the river and the system and the communities, a healthier outcome right across that system. This is of a far greater scale than the 450 gigalitres that is the sole topic of debate. We have the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, other Labor ministers, Greens senators and others who only talk about how little of the 450 gigalitres has been recovered and never acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of the 2,750 gigalitres has been recovered and that additional infrastructure works and management changes have recovered the bulk of the rest, ensuring that, as a country, we have actually delivered the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That is what has occurred, and we should be proud not only of it but of the reforms and changes that it's achieving. And we should be grateful to the communities who have borne the pain of adjustment and have worked tirelessly in the delivery of infrastructure upgrades. The approach this government has taken is, firstly, to basically dismiss the huge achievement that has been undertaken in favour of focusing purely on the addendum that was intended to exist to that achievement. Secondly, their approach has been to break the consensus of jurisdictions that has helped us deliver that huge achievement of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and, thereby, risk the cooperation for the future. Tragically, in their pursuit of this, that consensus across jurisdictions has been broken because of the abandonment of the very commitment that Tony Burke gave as water minister back in the previous Labor government that that additional 450 gigalitres—that addendum to the Basin Plan—would be achieved only by means without socioeconomic detriment to communities. The coalition, noting that we support some parts of this bill around timing and other factors, were willing to work with the government, as long as they maintained that no socioeconomic detriment test, as Tony Burke had inserted it in the first place. We were willing to work with them if they maintained reasonable restrictions on buybacks so that they weren't hollowing out irrigation districts but instead had a strategic approach to water recovery. We were willing to see the passage of this bill, because of the reasonable requests around timing and other factors in it, if the government was going to be reasonable in sticking to some of the safety nets that had been put in place in terms of the delivery of the addendum to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Sadly, the government has chosen the path of doing a deal with the Greens. That will only further jeopardise the cooperation of jurisdictions like Victoria and potentially others. It will only create further division in communities. It will, tragically, imperil irrigation districts, which is why even in my home state they are opposed to it. And, of course, it ignores the great success that has been the core of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its delivery to date. 18:54 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak to the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. This bill represents the latest iteration of the colonial government attempting to restore the health of country in the Murray-Darling Basin, and, yet again, First Peoples have been left out of the process. As Wiradjuri woman and academic kate harriden pointed out, the title of this amendment bill raises two questions deserving deeper consideration: who is the 'our'—whose rivers are being restored—and why do rivers need restoring? Evidently it is not First Nations rivers being restored, given the absence of First Nations peoples and of our water ontologies, axiologies, management praxes or epistemologies in this bill. To First Peoples, the earth is our mother. Water is the lifeblood that runs through country, connecting clans and songlines while nourishing the land. Since time immemorial, the knowledge and expertise of First Peoples has kept the lands and waters in the Murray-Darling Basin in optimal health while sustaining the cultural, social and economic wellbeing of communities who lived there. Our relationship with rivers, lakes and creeks is part of a deep sovereign connection with the country. To not only survive but thrive with over 250 distinct language groups for so many millennia on the driest continent on the planet, you need to have a very good understanding of water, where to find it, how to store and manage it, how to keep waterways clean and healthy, and how to ensure that all the life systems that depend on healthy waterways are kept in balance. First Peoples have never ceded our sovereignty. As the Blak Sovereign Movement stated in their submission to the inquiry into this bill: First Peoples have never surrendered. The war is ongoing. We are still here, we belong here and we maintain our rights, our borders, and our Sovereignty. This includes our water Sovereignty. Australian law and policy has systematically failed to recognise and address these rights, leading to the marginalisation of First Peoples in water decision making and dispossession from water access, management and ownership. First Peoples in the Murray Darling Basin have distinct, enduring sovereign rights and cultural obligations relating to the management and custodianship of our lands and waters. These rights, as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP—to which Australia is just a signatory at this point—have been systematically erased and negated from water management and decision-making. This bill as it stands represents the latest iteration of colonial governments' exclusion of First Peoples from water management and denial of our sovereignty and rights to care for country. First Nations currently own—get this—just 0.2 per cent of available surface water in the basin—0.2 per cent—while—wait for it—overseas multinational corporations own 12 per cent. In some regions, water ownership has decreased since the Basin Plan was legislated. This exclusion is known as aqua nullius, and kate harriden provided a definition of aqua nullius and its implications in this bill: 'Aqua nullius refers to the systemic and deliberate exclusion of Indigenous water rights from settler-state water laws and policies and resultant water system. Dr Virginia Marshall describes it as "governments' lack of inclusion of Indigenous water rights and interests … and reconstructs Indigenous water rights as aqua nullius or 'water belonging to no-one'". 'Aqua nullius effectively allows First Nations water values and practices to be constructed and defined by Western frameworks and values. For those familiar with Indigenous water design principles, aqua nullius can most obviously be seen in the waterscape, particularly water infrastructure—for example, weirs or stormwater systems—and channel modification—for example, channel straightening or filling in wetlands. 'However, aqua nullius is most pervasive in laws and policies. This bill epitomises aqua nullius, given its utter absence of Indigenous water rights and commitment to constructing and maintaining physical infrastructure changes in the waterscape. Thus the primary implication of this bill is the ongoing exclusion of Indigenous water rights from settler-state water laws, policy and practice. First Nations water laws, values, customs and practices remain "subdued". Given the Water Act 2007 is unlikely to be reviewed again in the near future, the bill will further entrench aqua nullius, resulting in further erosion of pre-invasion waterscapes, water quality and opportunities for Indigenous peoples to express their water rights, knowledge and practices.' This government has made big promises to First Peoples when it comes to increasing ownership of water and involvement in decision-making, and this bill offers a great opportunity to fulfil these commitments. I'm still in conversation with the government on how this bill could be improved, and I'm negotiating in good faith to ensure that the legacy of aqua nullius ends soon. Throughout the Senate inquiry process there was unanimous agreement from First Peoples and our representative bodies, environmental groups, irrigators and legal experts about what needs to happen to this bill to strengthen our water rights and deliver outcomes for our people. I acknowledge the need to get this bill through before the end of the year, but my question is simple: how much longer do we have to wait until we get a proper say in the management of water? How much longer do our sovereign rights and cultural obligations to care for country have to be denied? And how much longer do we have to stand by and watch our lands, waters, rivers, creeks and cultural heritage being destroyed by colonial systems of extraction before our science, knowledge and expertise is respected, before people realise that we have the solutions to restoring the rivers and country in the basin? Our solutions don't involve markets or dodgy infrastructure projects. Our solutions do not involve relating to water as transactional, as a resource to be extracted and traded. In First Nations ways of knowing and being, water is life. It is core to our relationship with country. Since colonisation, First Peoples and our representative bodies have asserted our enduring sovereign rights to manage, own and access water on our country. This has occurred alongside decades of advocacy for the colonial state to recognise and uphold First Peoples' water rights and interests, including proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Water Act. There is unanimous agreement for many of the proposals that are being put forward by First Peoples in this inquiry. As MLDRIN stated in their response to questions on notice, First Nations advocacy over several decades has been consistent and unequivocal in its call for recognition of First Nations rights in Commonwealth legislation, procedural justice and water access. MLDRIN's advocacy has been built on this policy platform over many years. As outlined in my additional comments to the committee report, I have highlighted some of the key reforms that need to happen in this bill and the Basin Plan to improve First Peoples' water rights and outcomes. These include: ensuring tangible First Peoples' water rights and interests through delivery of WESA; further improvements to the Water Act to recognise basin First Nations' right to procedural justice and water access and ownership; aligning the act with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including our rights to use and manage natural resources on our own lands; our right to self-determination, in building our own sovereign nations to own and manage our own water; our right to free prior and informed consent; and also ensuring proper representation by First Peoples in all water resource plans and the next iteration of the Basin Plan. Something else I have also pushed for which is crucial is for governments to genuinely resource a comprehensive basin-wide program of cultural flows without delay. This must include properly resourcing every First Nation in the basin and their representative bodies with sufficient and highly skilled staff and adequate funding to fulfil aspirations for genuine cultural-flows projects. It is critical that the Albanese government and Minister Plibersek do not miss this opportunity to fulfil some of the big commitments they have made, promising water justice for First Peoples. I will not let this be another broken promise from the government, who talk big yet continue to exclude us and deny our sovereign rights to manage country. I foreshadow moving my second reading amendment and look forward to continuing to negotiate in good faith with the government to improve water rights and outcomes for First Peoples—I'm sorry the Greens have already sold out on First Peoples, but it's not surprising—and ensure that the rivers and waters in the basin can be rightfully cared for and returned to good health. 19:07 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory We are dealing with an update to legislation governing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which, it seems to me, was an ambitious but imperfect plan. It has clearly resulted in some improvements in river health in many parts of the basin, but managing a basin as a connected system is a complex undertaking. Considering the health of the basin's many environmental assets as well as the economic value of the water is full of trade-offs and contested viewpoints. This year, I was lucky enough to visit communities in the south and north of the basin. I met with a broad range of stakeholders on those visits—irrigators, other farmers, First Nations groups, environmentalists, people who lived in towns along the river who were concerned about what water reform meant for them, and people who just genuinely loved the river and had a special connection to the river that flowed past their property or through their town. I would like to thank Senator Davey for her engagement on water and for hosting me in Deniliquin, where we saw the Barmah choke and the Barmah-Millewa forest, then went to Menindee Lakes and saw the spectacular Macquarie Marshes by getting out on them on horseback. We then flew over big areas that still are Ramsar wetlands but look more like dry paddocks while being talked through the consequences of lack of flows around places like the marshes. I'm grateful to the many people who engaged with me on this issue, the stakeholders who have come to Canberra, the many people who attended the two roundtables I held in Parliament House to learn more about the complexities of this issue, the people on all sides affected by this and people who have spent many decades working on either a specific part of the basin or an issue that encompasses many of the river systems. The contentious part of this is obviously to do with water buybacks which, again, is an issue where there are many views and, rightly, concerns about what buybacks mean for communities. When water is being bought to be returned to the environment, administered by DCCEEW, who, from what I could see, are doing a fantastic job in most instances, we need to take into account what effect that has on regional communities. We know how tough so many regional communities have it when it comes to access to different services and the distances that they cover to get to school or to health care or to weekend sport—whatever it may be. We also need to ensure we maximise benefits by ensuring water is purchased in catchments where it will do the most good. Something that I heard echoed from most stakeholders is we need water in the right areas, so we need an undertaking from the government that when water is bought part of the consideration be that it's going to go into the right areas to ensure that we have healthy rivers. Another thing I heard was concern about the focus on water quantity coming at the expense of water quality. Again, this is something we need to look at clearly. Many of these river systems need more water at the end of the day. But we need to be looking at: catchment management, farming practices along rivers, the way we are funding Indigenous rangers to get involved in river management, the way we are working with communities on riparian restoration projects and other conservation initiatives ,which we know are not just important environmentally but have huge social benefits. We've seen the data. The University of Canberra did a big study after the last big drought, looking at farmers who were engaged in Landcare or who identified as a regenerative farmer and their mental health through the drought fared a lot better than farmers who were not involved in those practices and did not have that support structure around them. There are far-reaching benefits for engaging and looking after these incredible rivers together. Senator Thorpe just raised issues about First Nations water. Clearly, this is something that, as a country, we have to come to terms with. We saw $40 million allocated in 2018 and it has just sat there; they have not spent a cent. That is now worth probably 60 per cent of what it was worth. I welcome the announcement of $100 million for First Nations water. We have to take this seriously and ensure that there is water for First Nations people not only for cultural reasons but also for economic reasons, that there is water owned by First Nations people so that they can benefit from the water economically, so they can farm and make a profit. On top of the funding, I agree that we need to look more at the consultation and the way that the 40 or so First Nations groups in the basin are engaged and then the way that they are empowered to actually manage water and to benefit from it. I would like to thank Senator Hanson-Young for her work on this issue for many, many years. I note that there a number of other South Australian senators for whom water at the end of the river is a huge issue, and many of them have kept this on the agenda for many, many years now. I would like to take a few minutes to draw the attention of the Senate to part of the Murray-Darling Basin. I would argue it's an incredibly important part of the Murray-Darling Basin that has been missed by the Basin Plan. The upper Murrumbidgee has its headwaters in the Snowy Mountains and it flows past the towns of Adaminaby and Cooma and then through the ACT into Lake Burrinjuck, where it then joins the Murrumbidgee. It is in the Basin Plan. This important river has been the forgotten river. It has totally missed out on ecological improvements from the Basin Plan. It has been run by Snowy Hydro with one goal in mind, and that is to generate electricity. We have seen it starved of historical flows, with 90 to 99 per cent of its flows taken away. We saw in the last drought that it stopped flowing in the ACT, with disastrous implications for the ecological health of this river that is so loved by the people who farm and live along it and by Canberrans, who spend a lot of time walking along the river, swimming the river and enjoying its beauty. The upper Murrumbidgee is an important source of water for towns such as Cooma and it's a backup water supply for Canberra. We know that population growth and climate change are putting increasing pressure on water supplies, on river health and, indeed, on whole catchments and on farmers in those catchments. We saw water trucked into Tharwa for drinking and for firefighting reserves. It is this overallocation of the upper Murrumbidgee that I think needs to be addressed. We have seen decades without the political will to do this, and here we are dealing with an update of the Water Act to make good on the promises of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That can extend the thinking and the care to the upper Murrumbidgee and the alpine rivers. The river needs more than reviews. It needs a guarantee of sufficient water. It needs a guarantee that it can continue to function. Minister Plibersek said this morning in her joint media release with the Greens: This is a critical time for our environment—I don't want communities to wake up one day with a dry river and know their governments could have done more. Yesterday, I visited the upper Murrumbidgee at sunrise and was lucky enough to watch a couple of platypuses feeding. It's extraordinary to live in a place where you can do that. This is the continent that we have and that we can and should be caring for. Clearly, when it comes to these complex pieces of legislation, with trade-offs and such different views on the same issue, the thing that I would keep reminding colleagues in here is to ask: how far ahead are we looking? Are we making decisions where we can pass things on to the next generation and be proud of our contribution, with more platypus for our children to see and with healthy rivers for them to swim in, and still with water allocation for farmers? Will we work out a system where we can have these trade-offs and don't end up in ultrapolarised debate over this? At the end of the day, we rely on these rivers for our health and wellbeing, for food and fibre and for all the emotional and spiritual connection, and we know that First Nations people have done that for tens of thousands of years. They've used the Murrumbidgee to walk up into the high country. They've met at specific places, year after year, for hundreds and hundreds of generations. While there's a huge amount of detail in this, we can't lose sight of the fact that we're part of these systems. We're part of nature and, if nature goes down, we go down with it. I thank the many people in this place who've been pushing to ensure that we can look after these rivers and also the many communities that rely on them. 19:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As we approach the vote on this key piece of legislation, this really should be a good day for our parliament and for our country. With the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023, we are taking another step in fulfilling our promise to the Australian people to deliver the Basin Plan in full. And that is what this bill does. It offers more time, more options, more money and more accountability. With these changes, we are opening up the full suite of water recovery options. We'll be able to invest in on-farm water infrastructure, in land and water purchases and in other novel water recovery mechanisms, where it's sensible to do so. We will be able to count recovery above bridging-the-gap targets towards the 450-gigalitre target. And we will be able to purchase water from willing sellers where it's needed to deliver the plan. Water purchase is never the only tool in the box. It's not the first tool at hand, but it does have to be one of them. The bill will also improve transparency and accountability in the Basin Plan and for water markets, and we know that this is most important for the many stakeholders engaged in productive activity in the basin. Can I thank the senators for their contributions in the second reading debate. This is an important debate for the country, and I do appreciate the range of experiences and perspectives that senators bring to this chamber. Can I thank also the crossbench for constructive engagement. We have worked with the Greens on a number of sensible amendments, and they include extra accountability to ensure that governments are recovering water as they are required to—especially the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment—$100 million in investment in Aboriginal water entitlements and new flexibility to ensure water is recovered from across the basin, north and south. I do want to say this also to the senators who are yet to make up their mind about how they will vote on this new law. Time is running out for the rivers of the Murray-Darling. None of us want communities to wake up one day to a dry river. Everyone wants healthy, productive agricultural activity and strong food and fibre industries. Everyone wants waters beds to breed and fish to spawn. No-one wants to lose that, and certainly no-one wants to know that their parliament could have done something to stop it. We do have to act now. I say to the Senate: thank you for your contributions. Thank you for your engagement to date, but work with us now to get this done. This is what the Australian people voted for. I should also say that I table an addendum to the revised explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 The question before is that the second reading amendment on sheet 2190, in the name of Senator Davey, be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind senators that, it being after 6.30 pm, the division is deferred. Other amendments have been flagged in the chamber from Senator Roberts, Senator Van and Senator Thorpe. I am advised that they do not conflict, so should you choose to move them at this stage, you may do so. We cannot vote on them, obviously, given the time, but should you wish to move it, then you may. Senator Roberts 266524 I assume I can move it tomorrow. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Yes. Senator Roberts 266524 Thank you; that's what I will do. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023, Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 94

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023

Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Consideration resumed of the motion:

That these bills be read a second time.

19:27 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Today I rise to speak on a matter of significant importance to the public health of Australians, and that is the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023 and a consequential amendments and transitional provisions bill. These bills aim to streamline tobacco regulation in Australia. The primary purpose of the bills is to consolidate the various tobacco regulations into one legislative package with the aim of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Australia's tobacco control framework. The coalition supports this aim in recognition of its importance to public health outcomes in this country. However, we have significant concerns that this bill completely ignores the critical issue impacting the effectiveness of tobacco control in Australia right now, which is the growing black market It is crucial to first acknowledge the historical context of tobacco regulation in Australia. In 2012, Australia became the first country to implement plain-packaging laws, a critical step in the global fight against tobacco use. There has been a longstanding bipartisan commitment to addressing this critical public health issue, with both Labor and coalition governments consistently raising tobacco excise taxes and implementing further measures to reduce affordability and to discourage smoking amongst the Australian population. In addition to plain packaging, graphic health warnings highlighting the devastating effects of smoking related diseases have been introduced on tobacco products in order to further discourage consumption. Australia also has stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising, sponsorship and promotion, ensuring that tobacco companies can't exploit loopholes for indirect promotion. The Australian government has been proactive in providing support for smoking cessation programs and services, including nicotine replacement therapy and support helplines. This multifaceted approach has been instrumental in reducing tobacco consumption in this country. This bill seeks to further regulate tobacco and e-cigarette advertising and sponsorships, prohibiting practices that may encourage consumption, including restrictions on advertising and promotion. It mandates the requirements for plain packaging of tobacco products, including stringent regulations on the appearance, content and standards of tobacco products to further discourage consumption. Certain tobacco items intended for oral use like chewing tobacco and snuff will face permanent bans in line with existing bans on similar products. Reporting entities will be required to submit detailed reports on tobacco products sold and supplied, and advertising, as well as on research and development activities. The bill establishes provisions for compliance and enforcement, including the appointment of authorised officers and civil penalty provisions to ensure the regulations are followed. The bill also includes various provisions related to delegation and Constitutional matters to support the effectiveness and implementation of these regulations. While the coalition supports these bills and their aim to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of tobacco control framework in Australia, it is with deep disappointment that we express our concerns regarding a crucial aspect of this bill that it does not address—that is, the rampant and growing issue of the illicit tobacco trade in our country. The illicit tobacco trade in Australia is a matter of increasing concern. It's absolutely undeniable that without addressing the illicit tobacco trade, the effectiveness of existing tobacco control measures will continue to be undermined, and a thriving black market will be further encouraged. This poses a serious threat to public health, to law and order, to government revenue, and to the very objectives that this public health bill seeks to achieve. Despite the importance of addressing the illicit tobacco trade to the effectiveness of Australia's tobacco control, this bill does not address this growing illegal tobacco trade. While the bill focuses on imposing penalties for noncompliance with legal tobacco regulations, it falls short when it comes to deterring and penalising those involved in the illicit tobacco trade. The penalties for engaging in this illegal activity remained largely unchanged, even in the face of the growing threat that it presents. To effectively control and combat the illegal tobacco trade, a coordinated effort is absolutely essential. It requires not only strict penalties but also proactive measures aimed at dismantling the illegal tobacco networks that thrive in the shadows. These networks operate with relative impunity, undermining public health objectives and costing the government significant revenue. The illegal tobacco trade is multifaceted and it affects various aspects of society. The availability of cheaper, unregulated tobacco products encourages smokers to continue their habit or entices potential new entrants, defeating the purpose of public health measures. This illicit trade also results in significant revenue losses for the government, funds that could otherwise be directed towards essential public services. This figure, from various sources, is now in the billions. It continues to grow, and it is unacceptable. The existence of a thriving black market for tobacco products undermines the effectiveness of tobacco control measures such as an excise tax and plain-packaging laws. The illegal tobacco trade often involves organised crime and money-laundering, contributing to a broader range of criminal activities. The coalition strongly believes that addressing the illegal tobacco trade must be an integral part of any comprehensive tobacco control strategy. We consider that significantly increasing penalties associated with the illegal tobacco trade should be given appropriate consideration. This not only serves as a deterrent but also allows for a more effective legal action against those involved in this illicit activity. Coordinated efforts between law enforcement agencies, border control and other relevant authorities are essential to dismantling illegal tobacco networks. Educating the public about the risks and implications of illegal tobacco consumption is also critical—this can reduce the demand for illegal products. Given the global nature of the illegal tobacco trade, international collaboration with countries where these products are manufactured or trafficked is also crucial. Importantly, comprehensive data and research on the scale of the illegal tobacco trade in Australia is needed to inform policy decisions effectively. The coalition cannot overlook the growing issue of illegal tobacco trade in this country. We are deeply disappointed that this bill does not adequately address this pressing concern and that, therefore, the success of public health measures contained in this legislation is seriously compromised. Without addressing the growing black market, this bill risks not being worth the paper that it is written on. The bill's objectives can be fully achieved only through a coordinated, comprehensive and robust effort to combat this growing problem, which is the growing black market in both illicit tobacco and vaping products. Just as the government is failing to address the issue of illicit tobacco, they're clearly asleep at the wheel when it comes to children accessing vaping products. Until existing tobacco and vaping laws are actually enforced—particularly, making sure that Australian children are protected from getting access to these products, through proper enforcement at the point of sale—then they cannot expect to achieve better outcomes in this critical and urgent area. This bill in no way seeks to address the issue of enforcement, which is underpinning a thriving black market in Australia. Likewise, we have serious concerns that the vaping regulations the minister is seeking to put through this place before the end of the year will fail to address enforcement based on what we've heard so far. For this reason, the bill we are debating today and the vaping regulations that have been foreshadowed by the minister will not protect Australia's children from accessing these dangerous products. Until a comprehensive effort to enforce current laws and regulations is undertaken and until the black market is addressed, we will not achieve better public health outcomes in our country when it comes to Australians' uptake of smoking and vaping. That is why I'm foreshadowing that I will move a second reading amendment which notes that this bill fails to combat the trade of illicit tobacco and calls on the government to commit to combating this trade as a priority. If the government wants to retain any credibility on protecting Australians and pursuing real public health outcomes, then it is imperative that they make this commitment. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that the bill fails to combat the trade of illicit tobacco; and (b) calls on the Government to commit to combating this trade as a priority". 19:36 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I'm speaking today on behalf of the Australian Greens in support of the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023. The Greens welcome this legislation which consolidates tobacco control laws and regulatory instruments and implements stricter controls on tobacco products. The Greens have always supported a reduction in the rate of tobacco use. The active and passive consumption of tobacco smoke is a demonstrated health risk and is a significant cost to the community and health care more broadly. According to the Cancer Council, about two million Australians currently still smoke regularly and an estimated 20,500 people die each year in Australia of smoking related illnesses. Let's just reflect on that for a moment. Over 20,000 people every year die of smoking related illnesses. That is completely unacceptable in 2023. Smoking is a major cause not just of cancer of the lung but also cancer of the head and neck, the oesophagus, stomach, liver, pancreas, bowel, the kidney and bladder, and the cervix, as well as acute myeloid leukaemia. It is expected that, on the current trajectory, cigarette smoking will cause more than 250,000 cancer deaths in Australia between 2020 and 2044. If you stop for a moment to think about the grief unleashed by that number—250,000—and the pain endured by so many, there is nothing that this chamber should be focused on in this moment except for the reality of the cost to human life and the impact of that on the community. We must be moved in this moment to be bold and to tackle this continuing, pervasive evil—this health based nightmare that continues to cause so much damage to so many Australians. In addition to cancers, cigarette smoking is a major cause of heart disease and stroke, and it is a causative factor for many chronic diseases and conditions, such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, muscular degeneration, cataracts, peptic ulcers, impotence, fertility problems—all of which greatly affect quality of life. What we know, clearly, and what we have known for all too long is that this is not the only cost in relation to quality of life and life expectancy. There are also clear economic costs. This bill provides an opportunity for Australia to lead the world in reducing the consumption of tobacco products, to improve the quality of life for our community and to better support our health system. This bill alone will not provide the community with the support it needs in full. I want to highlight the words of the Public Health Association of Australia, who said in their submission to the inquiry into the bill: It is essential that the Bill be understood as one component of the many-pronged National Tobacco Strategy. The Strategy sets the vision for reducing, and ideally eliminating, the harm caused by tobacco and associated products. The elements of this Strategy, including strong regulation, workplace safety measures, cessation support, information and behaviour change campaigns, revenue measures, approaches for priority populations including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and the protection of policy-making from commercial interference, are all interlocking and mutually supporting. The Strategy should remain a guiding framework for policy work through the current decade. In this, we urge the government to prioritise education campaigns, nicotine-dependence programs and better smoking-cessation tools which aim to support people to give up cigarettes. Additionally, as will be highlighted by the second reading amendment which will be moved by my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson, there are environmental as well as public health reasons to discourage the use of tobacco products. According to the not-for-profit No More Butts Campaign, up to 4.5 trillion cigarette butts become litter globally. In Australia, a World Wildlife Fund report estimated that up to 8.9 billion cigarette butts become litter each year. Cigarette butts are one of the three most common types of rubbish found in the Great Barrier Reef's marine environment. I urge the Senate to support this second reading amendment, in support of Australia's environment, which, critically, cannot be overlooked in the course of this debate. The Greens have always supported the critical need for a ban on donations from the tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical industries to Australian political parties and candidates. The influence of these lobbies on the work of this place is toxic. In relation to tobacco, it prevented for decades the adequate action that was needed to address this public health crisis. I shudder to think of the tens of thousands of lives lost in this country and all over the world because of actions that were stymied, stalled or shelved altogether because of the financial influence of big tobacco. It is a shame upon any and every political party that ever took donations and on any and every political party that still takes them to this day. It is nothing short of blood money, and it has no place in a modern-day democracy. Alcohol and tobacco policy development should occur without alcohol and tobacco company involvement; this should not be a bold thing to say in 2023. As my colleague Senator Waters said in relation to her private senator's bill to ban dirty donations: In the past decade, $230 million have flowed in corporate donations to the Labor, Liberal and National parties from the likes of the big banks; from industries like mining, defence and big pharma; from property developers; and from alcohol, tobacco and gambling companies. These are just some of the industries that have paid the Liberal, National and Labor parties to put their private profits ahead of the needs of our community. These industries are not donating millions of dollars because they believe in the institution of strong democracy. They are donating because it gets results for them. I couldn't have said it better myself: they donate to political parties to get outcomes, and those outcomes are to the detriment of the Australian people and our environment. They should be banned. They should have been banned decades ago. In every other space of regulation or proper work, this type of influence peddling would not be allowed. Yet in politics it is accepted as business as usual by people in this place. It is not accepted by the Australian public. The Australian public find the continued presence of corporate donations in politics to the very people given the jobs of regulating those industries and making those policies repugnant. That sense of revulsion reaches across the great divide of Australian politics and is felt deeply in the hearts of conservatives and progressives, and people everywhere in between. They want to see their democracy work for people, not for corporate profits. While the Greens remain in the Senate, on these crossbenches, that will be the goal we work towards. I indicate the support of the Australian Greens for Senator Pocock's amendment, which calls on politicians and all political parties to stop accepting political donations from the tobacco industry and to revoke any passes they have sponsored for members of the tobacco industry and their agents to access Parliament House. It is not a radical idea. Let's make sure that the merchants of death can't stalk the corridors of this place and influence the conversations about how we curtail and prevent the disastrous public health consequences and the human impact of the products they peddle and profit from. I indicate as well that the Greens are supportive of this legislation within the context where it is a tool in the toolbox to tackle this profound public health challenge. I once again commend Senator Whish-Wilson for his important amendment. With that, I will conclude my remarks. 19:47 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023. We have introduced this bill because, unlike those opposite, the Labor Party will always prioritise the health and wellbeing of all Australians. This bill is an extension of the world-leading tobacco control reforms introduced by past Labor governments, including the tobacco plain packaging reforms which reduced the appeal of tobacco products, made health warnings more effective and removed misleading information on packaging. When the then Labor Minister for Health introduced the plain packaging reforms, it was unprecedented. However, since then, over 26 countries have introduced similar reforms. This is a policy that has saved lives and will continue to save lives. When plain packaging was introduced, around 16 per cent of Australians were daily smokers. This has reduced by five per cent, the equivalent of one million—yes, that's right—fewer Australians being everyday smokers. I am proud that today we are building on this legacy by introducing bold legislation that will help save more lives and protect the health and wellbeing of Australians. We must recognise that tobacco use remains the leading cause of death and disability among Australians. It is an industry that is estimated to kill more than 20,000 Australians each year, and it is a leading cause of the health gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Under the former government, Australia dropped the ball on tobacco reform. For over nine long years, tobacco's regulation lagged behind the world. For nine long years, they neglected the health of Australians. While Australia's plain packaging measures introduced by Labor have made it harder for tobacco companies to market its products through packaging and brand design, the tobacco industry has found new loopholes to promote its products and increase their appeal, because the slow-alition couldn't keep up for the nine years they were in government. What is more concerning to me is that, due to their lack of action, young people are most at risk now. The tobacco industry is creating a new generation of smokers. We cannot let this continue. As Minister Butler said: Once again, it falls to a Labor government to close the loopholes that undermine our tobacco control measures and to shield Australians against the tricks and tactics of the tobacco industry. I commend Minister Butler for his work on strengthening tobacco control and safeguarding the health and wellbeing of Australians and our young people. This bill consolidates the existing Commonwealth tobacco control framework into one act with associated regulations, thereby streamlining the operation of the laws. It also modernises and simplifies the existing provisions and introduces new measures to discourage smoking and prevent the promotion of vaping and e-cigarettes. The bill achieves a number of important objectives, including expanding advertising prohibitions to reduce the public's exposure to the advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes and other novel and emerging products, particularly in youth and young adult spaces; the continuation of plain packaging requirements with additional prescription in the regulation for measures to enhance the regime, including the standardisation of tobacco product size in terms of the packs and pouches and cigarette stick sizes; restrictions on the use of brand and variant names that falsely imply reduced harm; the mandatory disclosure of sales, volume and pricing data and advertising, promotion and sponsorship expenditure; improved coverage, enforcement and compliance for tobacco control; updated and improved health warnings on tobacco product packaging to better inform consumers about the effects of tobacco use; stronger regulation of product features that are known to make tobacco products more attractive to consumers, including prohibiting in tobacco products such as crush balls and flavour beads; and restrictions on the use of ingredients or additives that enhance the attractiveness and flavour of tobacco products. This bill is critical in protecting all Australians by reducing the prevalence of tobacco and its use and its associated health, social and environmental costs. It is consistent with Australia's obligations as a signatory to the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which aims to protect present and future generations from the harms of tobacco use and the exposure to tobacco smoke. The provisions also reflect the best available evidence and the experience of other regulators overseas, including New Zealand, Canada and Uruguay. The bill will work in conjunction with the National Tobacco Strategy 2023-2030, which aims to achieve a national daily smoking prevalence of less than 10 per cent by 2025 and less than five per cent by 2030, and reduce the daily smoking rate for First Nations people to 27 per cent or less by the end of this decade. The Albanese government is determined to tackle the harms caused by smoking and is committed to introducing new controls on e-cigarettes and vaping to protect our young people. As a young person, it is the risk to my peers that I am most concerned about if this bill doesn't pass, and I refuse to sit by and watch the tobacco industry create a new generation of smokers. Sadly, there are many real-life examples that underscore the urgent need for this legislation. Communities around Australia are grappling with the consequences of tobacco use and addiction and they are rightly concerned about the increasing uptake amongst youth. Parents do not want to see their children become entangled in the web of smoking and vaping because what may begin as experimental stuff and puffs may soon morph into a lifelong habit. Countless young Australians are being lured into addiction through the deceptive tactics of the tobacco industry, and we must put a stop to it. We cannot allow our youth to succumb to the lure of fruity flavoured vaping products. Make no mistake, these products are specifically designed by the tobacco industry to appeal to our young people and they are succeeding. The sweet and fruity flavours mask the harsh reality of the devastating health risks that young people are exposing themselves to. The tobacco industry's relentless pursuit of profit is coming at the expense of our youth and their health. I'd like to share some reflections from the WA Commissioner for Children and Young People's Talking about vaping survey conducted in May of this year involving 3,303 participants in WA aged between 12 and 18 years. A 17-year-old female participant said, 'One thing I would like young vapers to know is that there are other better ways of satisfying yourself than infusing your lungs with battery acid and rat poison. There is more to life than deciding which flavour of smoke you want to inhale next. I also wish they knew about how much danger they are putting themselves in, not just their lungs and health but the danger of their vapes exploding. On multiple occasions people have had their vapes explode in their pockets or faces causing serious damage and harm. These injuries usually happen when a vape has been reused or recharged, which is often what has been done to these vapes being sold to young schoolkids.' A 14-year-old female who quit vaping said, 'The way that vapes are packaged and the flavours vape companies are producing, it is very targeted towards kids. It is also about how everyone is doing it. Kids get involved in trying to fit in and trying it and then 'boom, you are addicted and spending $35 to $40 every week on them.' When asked about solutions, many participants said they wanted stricter rules to prevent or stop vaping, especially through banning or restriction on the production, promotion and sale of vapes, especially to young people, as well as the greater education around vaping and its consequences. A 14-year-old male said the best solution is 'stopping vape resellers or shutting down vapes stores altogether'. A 15-year-old female said, 'More education about vaping is needed mainly directed towards the eshays and popular students who do vape because they don't understand the consequences and only laugh about it. You could even possibly bring in a person who has suffered from lung cancer by smoking or vaping or just any diseases that are caused by vaping and smoking.' Well, young people of WA, this legislation is our response. In fact, young people of Australia: it is the government doing its part to shield our youth from an industry that relies on deceptive tactics and encourages addiction. The Albanese government is determined to see Australia reclaim its position as a world leader on tobacco control because the fact of the matter is lives are at stake and vulnerable Australians are paying the price for big tobacco's profits. The best part about this bill is that it enables the government to be responsive to any new misleading or deceptive approaches that may be introduced by the tobacco industry in the future, ensuring policies can continue to be informed by best practice and emerging evidence. And by closing loopholes and modernising our tobacco control measures, we are also rewriting the narrative for young Australians, offering them a future free from tobacco addiction. Globally, we have seen the momentum on tobacco control continue. This bill will ensure that Australia is no longer falling behind. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 99 ADJOURNMENT Middle East, Australia: Multiculturalism 99 20:00 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I wish today to talk about why language matters, why it's important, and why we, in the Australian parliament, must think extremely carefully about what we say and the images that we present to the public. Antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of discrimination are heinous and have no place in modern Australian society. While we live in the most successful multicultural society in the world, that achievement does not come with a trophy which can be simply accepted and placed on a mantle for admiration. It requires ongoing commitment and ongoing work in order to maintain. When, in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition cynically attempted to link antisemitism to our Prime Minister undertaking appropriate duties overseas and meeting with our most important economic and military partners, the Leader of the Opposition diminished the very real rise in hate that is being experienced by Australia's Jewish community. When, just days ago, Senator Faruqi stood beside a sign that read 'Keep the world clean', with an image of the Israeli flag being placed into a bin, I was horrified. Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy and one that I will always, always support, but that sign has no legitimate place in protest. The use of the term 'clean' on that disgraceful poster undeniably invokes the language of ethnic cleansing. Such language stokes deep fear within the collective memory of Jewish communities. The language itself is a dog whistle for direct violence against Jewish people. It is frightening and it is wrong. I understand that Senator Faruqi has subsequently deleted the post and that the posting of this photo was likely accidental. However, the point remains that we must be strident in our condemnation of antisemitism. Such evils as that advocated in that sign do nothing but divide us. Words, symbols, signs and actions can undermine the path towards enduring peace, both overseas and within our region. It is at this vital moment that we must remain steadfast in our commitment to a two-state solution to this conflict in the Middle East. We must repeatedly reaffirm the right of all Palestinian and all Israeli people to live in safety, within recognised borders and within their own states. And we must support democratic governments. The sign which Senator Faruqi stood next to was not aligned with that endeavour. It was a call for the destruction of Israel. The weaponisation of antisemitism for political ends, as we have seen from the opposition leader and many members of the coalition in this place, is similarly destructive and must be condemned as well. Australians deserve leaders who unite us. We deserve words and actions that promote unity and peace for all—all human lives. This is a multicultural, multifaith nation. We must take pride in that fact. As senators, we must hold ourselves to higher standards in this place and, indeed, in our communities and our work that stretches beyond this building. We must not elevate the words of division and violence that undermine our genuine and, I hope, shared work towards peace. Education Standards, Victoria: Protests 99 20:05 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to address the serious issue of indoctrination in our schools. As shadow minister for education, I have said repeatedly that the classroom is for education, not indoctrination or activism. There is a real and very real proper basis to be concerned about the extreme-left ideologues who think it's okay to prosecute their own agendas in our schools. It is not okay. The job of our schools is to teach and to ensure children reach their very best potential. With one in three Australian students failing NAPLAN, Australian parents and teachers deserve to know whether the government has any plan to combat declining school standards. A report released today by Learning First details major gaps in the Australian science curriculum. Australia is 70th worst when it comes to managing classroom disruption. This is no reflection on our great teachers. Our teachers are fundamentally being let down by universities, which are leaving student teachers woefully unprepared to teach in the classroom. Only a handful of schools have adopted best practice teaching methods in literacy and numeracy. So I ask: what is the government's plan to fix our schools? Regrettably, all we have heard about from this government is talk of reviews, and not much more. The review to support the next National School Reform Agreement was handed to the government on 31 October, but why is this being kept secret? We attempted to secure an order for the production of this document here in the Senate, which very disappointingly was not supported by the Greens—so much for their focus on transparency! So I say to schools around this country: please focus on the fundamentals. It is regrettable that we have seen the activists encourage so many students to participate in these School Strike 4 Palestine events. This is deeply regrettable and only causes further division in our community. Last week on the streets of Melbourne and Sydney we saw students who skipped class to attend rallies, where they were exposed to antisemitic chants and hateful signs, which confirmed the worst fears of Jewish community leaders. School students may not even be aware that chants like 'from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' call for the destruction of Israel. Students should be in school and should not be used as political pawns by activists, including the Greens and the Australian Education Union. Like Senator O'Neill, I expressed my deep, deep concerns about Senator Faruqi standing next to that student protester holding that deeply offensive antisemitic sign, which was then posted on Senator Faruqi's social media account. While she took the photograph down from Instagram, I have called on her to unconditionally apologise for the deep hurt and offence that she has caused to the Jewish community. It's deeply regrettable that Senator Faruqi has not provided that apology. I also condemned the AEU's Victorian branch for its teachers and school staff for Palestine week of action, which began today, encouraging government schools to invite activists into the classroom. Even the Department of Education called this out and warned that, while staff have the right to freedom of expression, this is subject to lawful restrictions such as protecting public order and respecting the rights and reputations of other persons. A wonderful Jewish school principal from Mount Scopus, Rabbi James Kennard, said: 'This campaign crosses the line into antisemitism. It is grossly irresponsible. It puts the wellbeing of students at risk. And, because teachers must comply with the Victorian Institute of Teaching's code of conduct, which requires teachers to maintain objectivity and prohibits them from displaying bias, it also puts the jobs of teachers at risk.' This is another highly irresponsible campaign, and I call for the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, to do everything to shut it down. Northern Territory: Gas Industry 100 20:10 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak on the shameful Middle Arm petrochemical hub that the Labor government is forcing on Territorians. Middle Arm will see a one-thousand-kilometre petrochemical precinct built on the outskirts of Darwin, entirely predicated on the export of gas. Middle Arm poses significant threats to the health of the people of the NT. There is an extensive risk of toxic air pollution, of carcinogenic pollution and of industrial accidents—not to mention the risk that Middle Arm poses to groundwater and soil contamination, water scarcity and social disruption. There is overwhelming evidence of the harm to communities near fracking operations, including pregnancy complications, birth defects, childhood cancers, asthma and hospitalisations. And this doesn't even touch the sides of the other catastrophic health risks that come as a result of climate change, which the Middle Arm gas precinct will accelerate. In September, a UN special rapporteur visited Darwin and declared that petrochemical oil and gas projects threaten to make Darwin and the region a 'climate change sacrifice' zone. The rapporteur also said that Middle Arm and the toxic substances would releases would raise health concerns, such as asthma, heart disease and various forms of cancer, in neighbouring communities. What we're talking about is a 30 per cent greater risk of leukaemia for people living near the precinct. With billions of dollars of subsidies from the Labor government pouring into the project, it might be worthwhile for them to own up to the sheer level of danger they're subjecting Territorians to with this plan. But of course, in typical Labor fashion, instead of fessing up to it, they've obfuscated and refused to be honest with the people whose lives they're gambling with. The Labor government, in lockstep with the NT government, are refusing to tell the truth. They're refusing to tell the truth about jobs that aren't going to materialise, they're refusing to tell the truth about the health impacts and they're refusing to tell the truth about the real purpose of Middle Arm. The entire business case for Middle Arm is predicated on the export of gas—something we only know through freedom-of-information processes. The NT government even went so far as to scrub the word 'petrochemical' from public-facing materials. Who do these Labor governments think they actually work for? What a pathetic state of affairs this is; we have all of the markings of a petrostate, with none of the benefits. We have ministers and department staff running defence for coal and gas corporations just so these corporations can offshore all their profits and gamble with the health of Territorians—that's disgusting. Larrakia leaders have warned that the development of Middle Arm could lead to another Juukan Gorge—to the destruction of important sites. Significant sites are threatened by direct clearing for construction, and there's ecological degradation and pollution from the industrial activities of the precinct. The federal and Northern Territory Labor governments are running, knowingly and gladly, headfirst into another catastrophe like Juukan Gorge. Prominent Territorians have called this the largest project in the NT since colonisation. The federal and NT Labor governments must show that they meaningfully respect the lands of Aboriginal people Australia wide. They must seek free, prior and informed consent. The federal and NT Labor governments must engage in their duty of care to be transparent about the impacts of gas and petrochemical projects, and must stop subsidies to, and support for , fossil fuel companies. The Northern Territory and the people who live there must not be treated as a sacrifice zone so that the federal government can solidify their international relationships and can cosy up with gas corporations. If we care about a future for Territorians we need to end gas now. To all Territorians, we say: 'Keep causing good trouble. And keep fighting these utterly captured petrostate Labor parties,' because we won't stop fighting in this place too. Senate adjourned at 20 : 14