2023-11-28 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 28 November 2023

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Conference with House of Representatives 1 12:01 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I seek leave to move a motion relating to a conference with the House of Representatives, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to a conference with the House of Representatives to be moved and determined immediately. In September of this year Senator David Pocock and I stood with first responders to ask Minister Burke to split four elements of the industrial relations legislation, what the government calls its closing loopholes bill. The first amendment would mean that federal police, paramedics and firefighters wouldn't have to prove that they have PTSD and go through those traumatic circumstances. The second amendment would protect victims of family and domestic violence being sacked or discriminated against in their workplaces. The third amendment protects redundancy payments for workers when a large business becomes a small business due to insolvency. The fourth amendment brings silicosis into line with asbestosis. These amendments shouldn't have been put into industrial relations legislation in the first place. It was a low-down act to do so, and I call that out this morning. We have urged Minister Burke to split out these four uncontroversial elements so that we can put these protections in place for vulnerable Australians and so that we can do it this year, because, especially when it comes to PTSD and domestic violence, these areas are so important, according to the Greens and the Labor Party. We've kept asking the minister to do right thing and he's kept stubbornly refusing, pretty much to the point where he doesn't even come and speak to us now. So we split the bill and we got the support of the coalition and the crossbench, and I thank them both for that. We even gave the minister the split bills, and we were talking about our intentions in the media. In the last Senate sitting we brought the bills on and they passed. The government didn't vote against them. They were silent. That's right—they were silent. God forbid, wouldn't that look bad on social media, eh? Imagine that on social media—voting against legislation dealing with domestic violence and PTSD being brought in, effective immediately. Then the bills went to the House, where all the government had to do was vote on their own legislation. Senator Pocock and I were hoping, and I was praying, that the minister and the government would finally wake up to themselves and do the right thing, instead of worrying about right of entry having to start on 1 January. Apparently, right of entry for any union is more important than PTSD. It's more important than domestic violence. It's more important than silicosis. What do you know? The bills are not even on the Notice Paper today. But that doesn't matter. They've passed the Senate and can be passed by the government right now in the other place. Today we are asking the Senate to seek a conference between the Senate and the House because it seems that the minister is not big enough or man enough to man up and get this resolved. I mean, it should be damn embarrassing for the government that we have had to go to this extent to get this done. That is where we are at today. This conference would allow the chamber to seek agreement on a bill when the procedure of exchanging messages fails to promote a full understanding of the issues involved. Senator Pocock and I are serious about this, we want these protections in place by Christmas, and there isn't one damn reason why they shouldn't be—not one reason, apart from you using those four things as hostages so you can get the rest of your bill done, which is absolutely shameful in itself. We all want what is best for the Australian people and sometimes that means admitting your mistakes and fixing them. We are about to come into a fire season. We are going to be heavily relying on those first responders. That is what we're going to be doing. But you don't want to give them some relief before Christmas time so they can stop fighting a bureaucratic system that, I can assure you—take it from somebody who knows—not only destroys you as a person but destroys your family and those around you; that is what it does. It is time to stop making these sorts of people—our first responders and people in the AFP—prove that they have PTSD from their jobs. This is beyond a joke, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. So now that is what I am calling for. 12:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting the suspension of standing orders. This is a similar approach. Senator GALLAGHER ING Look, I am not going to take lectures on industrial relations from those opposite. Let me say, this is the most you have been concerned about workers' rights for the entire history of the Liberal Party. You couldn't give a hoot about it. Let's be clear, what you care about is disrupting the program and not dealing with water. That is what you care about. You are the party of WorkChoices—remember that? You are the party that has opposed improving workers' rights with every bone in your bodies since you were elected into this place. That is the approach you take, so don't start getting to us about workers' rights because history will show, and history does show, the approach that you have taken on industrial relations. It is convenient for you, I accept, to align yourself with Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie. I accept that. It is convenient. It is a stunt from your point of view. You have no commitment to the issues that are being debated. The government has a program this week that we are working through. We have important legislation, including water—which, again, I accept you guys don't want to deal with—that you would like to delay. That is the program we have set up. The Senate passed a motion last week which we voted against. The House has its program and that determines how it will deal with matters that are before the House, so we won't be supporting this suspension of standing orders. I know that the minister has been seeking to work with crossbenchers on these important reforms. We were very happy to deal with them this side of Christmas—let's not forget that—but what has happened is people have selected certain elements that they want to deal with but not deal with other parts of the bill and take out those bits. We wanted to deal with this bill; you didn't. You didn't want to deal with the bill. That is what happened. You delayed it through the Selection of Bills Committee report. You kicked the bill off it so it couldn't be dealt with. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 Are you serious? Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, I am serious. That is the position that was taken. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Through me. Senator GALLAGHER ING Sorry, Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Henderson, on a point of order? Senator Henderson ZN4 I was going to raise the point of order about speaking through the President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I have it in hand. Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING I know the truth hurts but, when the selection of bills came here, you organised for a longer referral so we couldn't deal with them this year. The government wanted to deal with them. We wanted to deal with them in their entirety, even if there were parts that people didn't support. You have that debate and you move those amendments. You don't select the bits that are convenient for you that you want to deal with and trash the rest of it. Let us be clear about what happened two sitting weeks ago when the bills were sent to the House of Representatives. No motion was moved to make them an order of the day, meaning they fell away. This is not the responsibility of the government. They were not government bills. Instead, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives conducted a filibuster rather than moving a motion to put them on the Notice Paper. No arrangements were made to put the bills before the House, so no bills exist in the House of Representatives because the opposition stuffed up the procedure and no other member of the House of Representatives was arranged. I understand that this has been explained to Senator Lambie around how that procedure was stuffed up— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING It was on your heads, actually. We will not agree with this. We see it for what it is, which is a delaying tactic and a disrupting tactic. That's why you're aligning on this, because you do not agree with positive industrial relations reforms. Otherwise, some of these things might have been done when you were in government, except they weren't. What a surprise! Your history shows the approach you've taken on industrial relations. You are trying to disrupt the program. We accept that we've lost half an hour and that we'll perhaps get to order before question time, if we're lucky, but that is not the government's position. We will not agree to the suspension. We do not support the motion that's been circulated. I would encourage crossbench senators to continue to work with Minister Burke to try and secure the successful package of this important set of reforms. They're important for working people across the country, and we want to work with the crossbench to ensure that they get done—all of the reforms, not just part of the reforms, all of them done together. 12:11 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The Albanese government is proving again and again that it just doesn't listen; that it doesn't listen to Australians and their concerns; that it doesn't listen, as Australians are feeling pain in a range of ways; that it doesn't listen to the business community and those expressing genuine concerns about the enormous complexity and the real risks that exist in their large industrial relations reform proposals; and, in this debate, that it doesn't listen to the crossbench and it doesn't listen to the Senate. It won't listen and is unwilling to budge. It's showing not only that it doesn't listen but that it is stubborn—relentlessly stubborn. The government has now for weeks had a crystal-clear opportunity to pass key parts of its industrial relations agenda, to pass the very issues that Senator Lambie spoke so passionately about in relation to small-business redundancies, protections against discrimination, asbestos safety and first responders. All of these matters could pass the parliament and be law by Christmas, and the only people standing in the way is the Labor Party. The Albanese government is standing in the way of their own legislation. What's their justification? Their justification is that, on their basis, it's all or nothing. It's our way or the highway. That's the Labor Party approach. And what is their way? Well, of course, a raft of new union powers, a raft of measures that have been identified as being of deep concern in the way they will hurt the Australian economy and of deep concern, in particular, in the way they will hurt productivity. Has anybody heard Treasurer Jim Chalmers talk about the need to lift productivity? An opposition senator: No! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I have heard him say it. The problem is that the only piece of major economic reform this government has is one that will harm productivity and that will drive productivity down, not up. Senators Lambie and Pocock have wisely identified issues within the government's bill that could progress that identify and address genuine issues, as Senator Lambie has spoken about so passionately. If the government were not so stubborn, they could get these matters past, and then other parts of their bill could still be considered in the normal way. Senators Lambie and Pocock have made clear that they are willing to work with the government in terms of addressing these matters. All they have asked for is time in relation to things in the government's legislation that won't come into effect until the middle of next year or until the end of next year, or even, in some cases, until the year after. Senator Cash has outlined to this chamber previously that there is no urgency for many of the things in the government's bill, but there is urgency for some of the things in the bills presented by Senators Lambie and Pocock. It is the Labor Party's stubbornness, their trickery, their feeling of the wrong priorities, that is seeing the Labor Party oppose these efforts. So we support this suspension and consideration of what is a historic motion being proposed by Senators Lambie and Pocock. It is a historic motion calling for a conference between the two houses. No such motion has passed this chamber since 22 June 1950, but that is the passion Senators Lambie and Pocock feel in deploying a tactic that will force representatives of both chambers together. That's necessary because what the government is doing in the House of Representatives is basically sweeping the crossbench proposal under the carpet and just saying, 'Not really here, not going to look at it, just going to ignore it.' They haven't had the courage or the guts to vote against what the crossbenchers have done. They haven't had the courage or the guts to put on time for it to be debated or listed. They're doing a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil type of act and not even looking at this proposal or these bills. Congratulations to the crossbench for calling out the trickery, the contempt and the stubbornness of the Albanese government. The chance is here for the government to change course and get these bills passed by Christmas. This motion shouldn't even be necessary, but we absolutely support it as a means to resolve this impasse. 12:16 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Imagine being lectured by Senator Birmingham and the coalition about productivity growth after a decade of the lowest ever productivity growth in our national history by a government that didn't understand the levers of productivity growth in the modern economy. It was the worst achievement ever in our history. Jobs were lost and investment went because of their mismanagement. Imagine taking a lecture from these jokers about productivity growth. That is the most dishonest, inappropriate, disconnected-from-reality kind of proposition that you could ever imagine. I understand Senator Lambie's proposition. I understand why she would adopt that proposition. There are a series of items in this bill that she instinctively supports and some others she finds more difficulty with. She would prefer to be able to deal just with the ones that she instinctively supports and deal with the others later. I understand that proposition. I don't agree with it. I think it's not the way that legislation works in this place, and it certainly wasn't the way— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator AYRES 16913 it certainly wasn't the way that you lot dealt with legislation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Ayres, through me. Senator AYRES 16913 I do wonder, though, about the mechanism that Senator Lambie has proposed. I wonder where she got the advice to propose that recommendation? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Ayres, just be careful here. I don't want any imputation of improper motive. Senator AYRES 16913 I'll make it all right, don't worry. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I think you should reflect on your comments. Senator AYRES 16913 I wonder whether the source of the advice, whether it's in her office or colleagues or over here or wherever it is— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator AYRES 16913 or there. I wonder whether she has had the opportunity to consider something that is on the face of it procedurally risky, but also constitutionally risky in terms of the way we're dealing with legislation. As Senator Birmingham said, it has not been used since 1950, not since the 1950s. That is a very risky proposition for this place to consider. Now, I think that it's a bad idea for it to be pursued. I'm very sceptical of the alternative party of government here thinking that this is a good idea. What is this bill really all about besides the matters that Senator Lambie has set out? It is about dealing with the gig economy. Workers are being killed in the gig economy while delivering your lunches and dinners on their bicycles in every capital city around this country, and you want to put it off. It's not important enough for you lot. It is also about same job, same pay. I understand why you want to continue the labour hire rorts and loopholes. I don't think Senator Lambie ought to put that off into the never-never, which is the proposal here. It is about wage theft. The wages of ordinary people, particularly young workers in hospitality and retail, are being wilfully stolen from them, and the alternative party of government says: 'Nothing to see here. Let it go.' That is the proposition here. This government is not going to support the cherry-picking of elements of our industrial relations legislation. We are working in a careful way through fixing an outdated and broken industrial relations system that has undermined productivity, undermined investment confidence and undermined cooperation in our workplaces. If you care about cooperation in our workplaces, if you care about cooperation productivity growth and if you care about cooperation business investment in the Australian economy, the way forward is all about supporting our industrial relations reforms. What we won't cop from the party that destroyed Australian manufacturing, that offshored vehicle manufacturing and that saw manufacturing shrink is a lecture about manufacturing in this country. 12:21 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I want to remind the Senate that this motion from Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock is in support of the Senate's will. The Senate has already decided this. That's all we want. Secondly, has anybody in the Labor Party heard of the 'Kevin Rudd slide' or the 'Julia Gillard slide'? The press is now reporting that the 'Anthony Albanese slide' is at an even steeper rate than the 'Rudd slide' and the 'Gillard slide'. All are self made and imploding. And then Senator Ayres has the hide to impugn Senator Lambie as if she couldn't think of this herself. They can't think for themselves, because they rely upon one party boss to drive them. That's it. This is egregious damage to Senator Lambie, and I support Senator Lambie in her own right. I also remind the Labor Party of housing, energy and immigration. They are destroying and gutting farming and gutting infrastructure, and now they want to tell lies about industrial relations with the closing loopholes bill that Senators Lambie and Pocock have seen their way through and from which they pulled out the four key elements that are genuine, which were lumped in there to hide the egregious loophole-closing when there is no such loophole. All we need is to enforce the Fair Work Act. The provisions are already there. This goes to honesty—or lack of honesty—in the Labor Party government, and it goes to their repeated, deep, ingrained fear of scrutiny. I'll be supporting Senators Lambie and Pocock. 12:23 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia What have we got here? We have got a government that is clearly trying to hide a set of provisions contained in a bill by trying to cover them up. These are some of the most sensitive issues that could be delivered by Christmas to a whole heap of people in this country. Those people probably would be absolutely looking forward to receiving the kind of support that has been demonstrated by the huge bravery of the crossbench senators who sought to pull out these four components from the industrial relations bill that was put forward by this government. I acknowledge both Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock and the fact they have seen the importance of these four particular components of the bill, which they thought were so important that they needed to be separated out so that they could be moved quickly and so that appropriate scrutiny could be shone over the rest of this bill. We know that the reminder of the industrial relations bill has some very significant components that would impact massively on the productivity of this nation, on the workers of this nation and on the business of this nation, and they deserve and require a much longer and harder level of scrutiny than we are seeing with the government trying to push this bill through this place. At the actions of the crossbench senators, we've seen four really important components extracted from the bill, about which there is absolutely no controversy whatsoever, and it is the will of this chamber for those four components to be passed immediately. As Senator Roberts just pointed out, what we're seeing here today is the government, through the action of refusing to allow this to go forward to conference, actually saying that the will of this Senate is to be disregarded. I think that is probably the most important and the most unfortunate thing about this debate today. Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock and the crossbench, with the support of the coalition, want to test this for real. By having a conference of both the houses, the entire will of this parliament will be tested as to whether these four really important components of the industrial relations legislation should be allowed to progress without any further delay. That's all we're asking for this place to do. But for some reason the government do not want this to go ahead. So the question has got to be: why are they doing this? Quite simply, the reason they're doing it is they are holding hostage these really important elements which would allow first responders to not have to go through a lengthy process in relation to proving PTSD, which would put a protection in place for people with asbestos, which would make sure that big businesses that become small businesses in terms of redundancies aren't able to hide behind a loophole and which would allow employees who are victims of domestic violence to not be discriminated against. How on earth can you stop these things going forward? Stop holding these particular pieces of this legislation hostage to the dirty work that you want to do on behalf of your union mates. Allow the will of this parliament to be determined, and allow Senators Lambie and Pocock and the rest of the crossbench to at least test the will of this place, instead of holding pieces of this legislation to hostage because of your political desires. 12:27 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 12:35 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That a motion relating to a conference of the House of Representatives may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:37]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That— (a) notwithstanding standing orders 127(1) and 156(3), the Senate requests a conference with the House of Representatives on the following bills sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence: (i) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023, (ii) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, (iii) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, and (iv) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023; and (b) the House of Representatives be informed that, in the event of a conference being agreed to, the Senate will be represented at the conference by twelve managers, comprised of Senator Jacqui Lambie, Senator David Pocock, four senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and four senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and two senators nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:41]
(The President—Senator Lines)

32 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 7 BILLS Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 7

Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

Second Reading 7 12:48 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Davey be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

12:50 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—President, could you please note my support for (b) on the sheet of amendments just moved by Senator Davey? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Pocock. 12:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet No. 2159: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes: (i) that water recovered by the South East Flows Restoration Project is included in the South Australian Government's water accounting as a sustainable diversion limit adjustment, and (ii) the figure used is not accurately measured for surface water and aquifer flow into the Coorong and Lake Albert; and (b) calls on the Minister for the Environment and Water to ensure the surface water and aquifer flow from this project is measured and accounted for accurately". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:55]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 28 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 12:57 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move the second reading amendment standing in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) acknowledges the historical and ongoing exclusion of First Peoples from the use and management of Basin water resources; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) recognise and respect the Sovereign rights of First Peoples in the Murray-Darling Basin to manage and care for lands and waters, (ii) undertake work and consultation to align all water legislation and policies with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (iii) ensure that the Minister for the Environment and Water and relevant water agencies, including the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, are required to consult and cooperate in good faith with First Nations in the Basin through their own representative institutions in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent in all decisions around water management, (iv) recognise that women hold important water knowledge and reflect this in consultation with First Peoples around water use and management; and (v) commence Treaty processes with all sovereign language groups so that all Nations can self-determine their own aspirations in relation to water access, use and ownership". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading motion as moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [13:00]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 32 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Davey, P. M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:02 The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I move to the next second reading amendment, I advise advisers at the back of the room that, once tellers are appointed, you are not to move and you are to be sitting down. Senator Van, are you seeking the call? 13:02 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I move the second reading amendment moved in my name. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Van be agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 10 13:04 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. 13:05 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales It is my understanding that, right here, right now, the minister is again in the process of having a press conference with our colleague Senator David Van. We have not yet seen the circulation of the amendments that the press conference is talking about. We have just seen Senator Van's second reading amendment pass, with our support because we do fundamentally support in principle enabling the government to use all available options when considering how they will recover water. I understand that the government has amendments through this committee process to facilitate the proposal in Senator Van second reading amendment. They will enable the bill to allow the option of forward leasing, instead of purchase, for the Commonwealth to recover environmental water. I fundamentally agree with that. We would also like to see—and we will be moving amendments through this process—the government acknowledge complementary measures and rules changes as part of environmental recovery and as part of the Basin Plan. We know that the hard work hasn't been done by the department or this government of looking seriously at how that moves, so we have an amendment before us to require the government to undertake an independent review of complementary measures—things like fish passage, cold water pollution, addressing riparian vegetation and rules changes. We know that the New South Wales government has actually called on this government to do that work to enable rules changes to form part of the recovery process. We're calling on the minister to require that that work be done and not just accept when the department says: 'It's all too hard. We don't want to look at it.' It's much easier to rely on the transfer of a piece of paper. A licence is effectively only a piece of paper. That's what this government has been relying on. We do support the work that will now go into looking to enable long-term leases. Either way, we believe it's appropriate for farmers to hold onto their water entitlements and be able to lease them to the Commonwealth at certain times and in certain scenarios. We believe that is one of a swathe of options that should be on the table for the government to consider. I congratulate my colleague Senator Van for his efforts to make sure that that gets across the line. It's funny that in the past I myself raised that option with the government. Admittedly, at the time I raised it I was not fobbed off immediately, but clearly the minister has determined that she will talk to the Independents more than she'll talk to the opposition on this. A lot of the government's amendments before us do raise significant questions, particularly when it comes to the idea of a one-off SDL adjustment. I will have questions for the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water to try and get to the bottom of what that one-off adjustment means, particularly as to whether both credits and debits will be given equal weight and whether those one-off adjustments then go on the register and will be carried forward—and carried forward after water resource plans have been accredited. I note that these amendments were circulated only late yesterday. From my reading, it appears that the one-off adjustments are to allow for recording on the register of take in areas where there aren't resource plans accredited. There are also questions about what the leases will look like and whether there are any case studies or examples the government can point us to to make sure that our interpretation of leasing is actually consistent with what is going to be in the bill. There are questions about the expansion of the additional held environmental water to be water access rights, water delivery rights or irrigation rates—or part thereof—and about whether those are the areas that facilitate leasing. I have some further questions about the meaning of the Greens amendments, specifically in relation to what some of the notes mean, and I will be asking about those through this process. To cut to the chase, this is a moving feast, and it has always been a moving feast. The Basin Plan has for many years enjoyed bipartisan support. We did approach the government to talk about keeping the socioeconomic test for the recovery of additional environmental water. I understand that that is part of what is being talked about at the press conference that is underway right now, but we have not seen that amendment, and I really need to ensure that that amendment will go far enough. Not having seen that amendment, I have proposed an amendment that will insert a socioeconomic test into the bill, which I know is robust, which I know is consistent with the 2018 agreement of the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council and which has the support of basin communities from top to bottom, including South Australian basin communities, which I know everyone likes to fob off on one another. There are so many questions, Minister. Through the committee phase, I should start asking those questions. The first question is: are you able to explain, Minister, the purpose of the one-off adjustments? Can you clarify that they are just to allow the register of take to record, in the absence of accredited water resource plans, where basin valleys or water resource plan areas are at, or do these one-off adjustments apply to any water resource plan area? 13:14 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Davey, thank you for your question and for your patience while I find the relevant information in my folder. As you would certainly understand, under the Water Act and the Basin Plan there are 30 water resource plans required to be prepared by basin states and accredited by the minister. As you know, these underpin water accounting for the plan and they are key to its implementation. These were all supposed to be in place by 1 July 2019. Notably, New South Wales did not meet that time frame—we discussed this at some length in estimates. In fact, New South Wales still has 11 water resource plans that are yet to commence. This amendment which the government will propose—and I think it's what you're referring to with your question, the government amendment about an adjustment—enables the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to make a one-off adjustment for water resource plans that were accredited after 1 July 2019. The adjustment would reflect the sum of combined annual permitted take and annual actual take calculations for each relevant water accounting period from 1 July 2019 to the year that the register commences. So the water accounting will be deemed to have commenced on 1 July 2019. We have put this forward to deliver fairness for all of the basin states. It means that we start water accounting for everyone from 1 July 2019, irrespective of when the water resource plans were actually accredited. I think you would understand that it wouldn't be fair for New South Wales and some other states to have an advantage, or other states to be disadvantaged, through the delay in water resource plans commencing. All basin states were consulted on this provision, and supported it. This amendment also addresses recommendation 8 of the Senate committee, and responds to submissions to the Senate committee, including by the Inspector-General of Water Compliance and the Victorian and South Australian governments. 13:17 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I have further questions but, because my colleague Senator Lambie has other commitments, I will hand over to her, through the chair. 13:17 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to speak on the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. The first thing for me to say is that neither the Murray nor the Darling rivers run through Tasmania, but that doesn't mean that I don't take an interest in or care about the Murray-Darling Basin and the plan to make sure the rivers will continue to flow. The Jacqui Lambie Network has been banging on about our nation's food security and national water ever since I was elected. The Murray-Darling Basin supports $22 million in agricultural activity and is part of our nation's food bowl. Over two million Australians call the basin home and 40 First Nations peoples have called it home for a thousand generations. The Murray-Darling Basin also generates billions of tourism dollars, not to mention the internationally recognised wetlands and the animals, birds and fish that live on and in the rivers. The Murray-Darling Basin has many stakeholders, and that includes communities in the basin and beyond. These are people in Adelaide and as far as Whyalla on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula, who drink its water. But for a long time there has been too much water taken from the Murray and the Darling rivers. It took the millennium drought for our leaders to wake up to the idea that a plan was needed to address the overextraction of water. Back in 2006, water ministers from the affected states and the federal government met and agreed that if things didn't change it would lead to environmental, economic and social disasters. And, for once, everyone agreed that action must be taken. A year later the Water Act 2007 was passed, guided through the federal parliament by then federal water minister, Malcolm Turnbull. It legislated the need for a plan, the scientists got to work and in October 2010 the Murray-Darling Basin Authority said that, scientifically, we need to return at least 3,900 gigalitres of water, and that was for a low certainty of success. But the scientists at the time said that a better number was 7,600 gigalitres for a high certainty of success. The big irrigators weren't happy. They saw an immediate challenge to their bottom line. Protests were organised. In Griffith there were even burnings of the guide to the plan. Well-paid lobbyists were engaged and political arms in this building were twisted. I can tell you that nothing much changed. In the end—what do you know?—as per usual politics trumped science. I know that, sadly, that won't surprise many Australians out there. The lobbyists had done their work, and the plan for water was reworked so that it called for only 2,750 gigalitres to be returned to the river system, plus another 450 gigalitres of 'efficiency water' South Australia insisted on before agreeing to the plan. Instead of a scientific number between 3,900 and 7,600 gigalitres of water being returned to the river, the target was set at just 3,200 gigalitres. You wonder why we are standing here today. The scientists had agreed that 3,200 gigalitres wasn't enough, and, by the way, it wasn't. To make matters worse, the government didn't factor in climate change, which of course is making the situation even worse. It's getting hotter, and inflows to the southern basin are falling. Less water is going in, more is being lost through evaporation, and there has been no reduction in what's being taken out of the river. Thirteen billion bucks was set aside to implement this scientifically flawed plan. What happened? It failed. It has fallen short of the 2,750-gigalitre target. After nearly 10 years, the plan has recovered just over 60 per cent of the target. Of the 450 gigalitres, only five per cent has been achieved. That in itself is shameful. It's a pretty bad return to Australians out there for their 13 billion bucks. After 10 years of the very poor performance of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments, Labor has been left to clean up the mess. But—this gets even better—it's taken Labor and Minister Plibersek 18 months to come up with a plan to fix the water flows and keep the rivers flowing, and this is what they've come up with. The bill before us isn't perfect. As a matter of fact, it is far from it. It's not a winner for any of the stakeholders. No-one is winning out of this. You've had 18 months to come up with a plan of trash. That's what the taxpayer is paying for. That's the truth of the matter. Is this the best thing you could deliver in here? My goodness me, Labor is slipping, isn't it! The coalition originally promised First Nations people $40 million to buy water entitlements. The $40 million never turned up, and now the Labor government is promising $100 million. But the bill doesn't, in law, recognise the connection of these nations. The bill also removes the cap on water buybacks, which is the main method for getting water back into the rivers. Guess what, Australia? The government won't even say how much this will cost. That's right—it's got no costing on it. And another thing: the government are hiding behind commercial-in-confidence, as per usual. Australians are no better off with either side. The bill also doesn't address—wait for it—targeted reforms that will take into account climate change projections. They have not done that. They have not done that, but the Greens have decided to sign up with them. I don't see any amendments that address that. The Greens are signing up with the Labor Party here. With environmental groups telling the media that this bill is doing the bare minimum, this is as good as it gets from a Labor-Greens government. This bill also delays a review of the operation of the act. A farmer told me, 'I have never been to so many depressing farming meetings since this bill was announced.' As if they're not doing it tough enough already. Something has to be done. We're at a fork in the river. Down one path is a smooth ride free of conflict with big irrigators and state governments, but it will inevitably lead to dry creek beds and environmental disasters. Down the other path are some political rapids that will take a bit of courage to push through, but they will lead to a sustainable system where everyone benefits, even the irrigators. This looks to me like another government bill that has been designed to do a little bit here and a little bit there but never fix things. It's like being half-pregnant. You haven't got the glory to go all the way and do what needs to be done for national water security; that is what it comes down to. Why aren't we looking at what crop production best meets the national interest? Why aren't we looking at what crops are needed to provide a variety of food for Tasmanians? Have you learned nothing from COVID on that side? Obviously not! Which communities and businesses can be transitioned so they can survive into the future? Where is all that done? Look at the cotton and the almonds, crops that use hundreds of gigalitres of water. But we ship it off so that huge hedge funds—that's right, the hedge funds—and big business can make mega profits. Don't worry about our food and water security in Australia; don't worry about that. You have neglected that, as per usual. We live in the driest continent on the planet, and exporting cotton and almonds is the same as exporting water. How dumb is that? I thought this government was going to bring back manufacturing; I thought it was going to bring some common sense back in here. It obviously has not! This government was going to make Australia great again. Well, we're 18 months in. How's that going for you? Not so bloody great, is it? I'll be looking at every one of these amendments, and I'll be looking very carefully at what we have done this morning, because, as per usual, having everything wedged at us as once as a crossbench is not helpful. I'm hoping that some of these amendments may make this bill just a little bit better, although I have my doubts. I also want to make sure that this apparently new plan will protect our food security. I actually have no faith in you doing that whatsoever, to be honest—none whatsoever! And I ask the Australian people not to have any faith in them either, because I do not believe you'll get the job done. My question to you, Minister, is: I have not seen it, but is there or is there not economic modelling in relation to this bill? 13:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank senators for their contributions this morning and in the second reading debate. Senator Lambie, you've made a number of observations about areas where you believe the bill ought to have gone further. You've also made a number of observations, which I agree with, about the shortcomings in the last decade. The truth is that settling a set of workable arrangements for a healthy working Murray-Darling Basin was a very difficult political challenge indeed. I was talking to someone just yesterday who referred to the fact that in the debates leading up to the Federation a good proportion of the record of conversation between the different states when they were contemplating forming the Federation was, in fact, about how the Murray would be managed and how the assets and the resources in the Murray system would be worked. It is a longstanding feature of Australian politics. It took the last Labor government to work through the very complex issues, balancing the economic interests, the community interests and the environmental interests in that system. The truth is that many decades of development saw more water resources allocated for productive use than could be sustained in that system. The test for government—which was met in a bipartisan way at that time—was to find a fair way of redressing that and responding to it. Unfortunately, in the years that the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments were administering this plan, they didn't make sufficient progress. On coming to government, we were advised that it wouldn't be possible to implement the plan in full on the current policy settings. That's the process that has led to this bill. We know these are hard questions for communities to deal with. Change is difficult. That's true, whether it's change that comes about as a consequence of global economic forces shaping the preferences for crop production in the basin or change that comes about because a warming planet is creating drier conditions in parts of the basin. It's also true about policy changes. It's why we have tried to work through this in a sensitive, consultative way, engaging with all the stakeholders to try and find a way through this, working with the states and territories and the various parts of the basin community. You asked about economic modelling for this bill, Senator Lambie, and I think what you are really referring to— Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 14 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Live Animal Exports 14 13:30 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia It is rare that we look over the ditch to our friends in New Zealand and like to praise them! It's rare; we have a healthy level of competition with our New Zealand fellow citizens of this part of the world. But I will today congratulate the incoming New Zealand government for standing strong and standing by their decision to overturn the New Zealand Labor government's ban on live exports and to reinstate live exports to New Zealand. This is, obviously, something that's very much welcomed by the farmers of New Zealand, and rightly so. It was an important part of the dynamics of their market, particularly in the cattle export trade. Potentially, this comes at a cost to Australia because we did well out of that market when New Zealand decided to abandon its place in the live export trade of cattle. However, I'd say, particularly to Western Australian sheep farmers, and to all sheep farmers across Australia and everyone involved in that supply chain: 'Look across the ditch, and have hope. What the New Zealand government has done in overturning the ban on the live cattle trade can be done in Australia. All we need is a change of government.' A Liberal government led by Peter Dutton is committed to reinstating the live export trade in sheep, overturning any ban that is put in place by this Labor government which attacks our wonderful Western Australian sheep industry. Leader of the Opposition 14 13:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The opposition leader is known to many Australians. He's the man who requires no introduction—you know who: he who shall not be named. His views over many years are on the public record. We know Mr Dutton boycotted the apology to the Stolen Generation in 2008— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Polley. Senator Hughes, on a point of order? Senator Hughes 273828 Yes, Acting Deputy President. The reference that was just made by Senator Polley was towards the opposition leader. He should be referred to by his correct term, not by the smears and innuendos that were just made by Senator Polley. She should withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Polley, did you want to speak on the point of order? I will rule on it. Senator POLLEY e5x I do want to speak on the point of order, Acting Deputy President. When I addressed Mr Dutton, I used 'Mr Dutton'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Polley. Senator Hughes, given that this is two-minute statements, I don't want to get into too much of a debate on this. On the point of order— Senator Hughes 273828 No, but the reference was clearly a juvenile reference to Harry Potter, and— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Hughes, I think that's a debating point. But I will remind senators that when referring to colleagues and members in the other place that they used their correct titles in doing so. Senator Polley, please continue. Senator POLLEY e5x He joked about sea level rise in the Pacific, clearly displaying that he doesn't care for the lives of our Pacific neighbours. He described Malcolm Turnbull's decision to allow lesbian— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Polley. Senator Brockman on a point of order. Senator Brockman 30484 Yes, there was a clear imputation—193(3). It needs to be withdrawn. If Senator Polley is going to keep going down this path, she is going to keep getting interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Polley, for the ease of assisting the chamber, I might ask that you withdraw any language that may have breached the standing orders. Senator POLLEY e5x I'm very happy to withdraw any language that is offensive to the standing orders. He described Mr Malcolm Fraser's decision to allow Lebanese Muslim refugees into the country in the 1970s as 'a mistake'. Here's the man who said his Labor opponent was 'using her disability as an excuse'. He called the two children of the Biloela family 'anchor babies' to incite another immigration war. He claimed refugee women were faking rape— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Polley. Senator O'Sullivan on a point of order. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 It's against standing orders to ascribe a particular motive to another member. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I think that is right, Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Polley, may I ask again that you withdraw any language that offends the standing orders and to continue with your contribution being mindful of some of the points of order that have already been raised. Senator POLLEY e5x I'd like to speak to this point of order. Referring to the fact—it's factual—that Mr Dutton claimed refugee women were faking being raped— Senator POLLEY e5x Well, I— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order. Senator Polley— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order across the chamber. Senator Polley, for the ease of the chamber— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 thank you, Senator Hughes—please progress with your contribution. Senator POLLEY e5x Thank you. The claim that refugee women were faking rape claims to get out of mandatory detention is disgusting, and I thought everyone in this chamber would support that point of view. He alleged that Victorians were scared to go out for dinner because of 'marauding African gangs'. This is the man who is the opposition leader. He allegedly cancelled work morning teas held in the defence department. Some say he resembles the man who shall not be named in likeness and in spirit. Mr Peter Dutton is a man of division. It is all known by the Australian community. He takes pleasure out of trying to destroy his opponents, whether they're in this place or the other place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Polley. Senator Brockman on a point of order. Senator Brockman 30484 Honestly—1933; I don't need to say any more. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Ayres on the point of order. Senator Ayres 16913 On the point of order, there was quite some discussion in the last sitting week, I think, about personal reflections and imputations. There was a series of personal reflections and imputations that week which went a long way further than what has normally occurred. However, the correct response is not for there to be such a narrow interpretation of personal imputations that you can't say anything negative about a political figure at all. It's something that will have to be reflected upon, but I don't think it should unduly limit senators' contributions in its place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Ayres. Senator Polley, I'll call you in a moment. In the nature of getting this matter dealt with, I might refer these particular questions to the Clerk and to the President to look at how broadly we want to define these limitations on what can and can't be said. Senator Polley, I will call you for the remaining 17 seconds of your statement—Senator Brockman? Senator Brockman 30484 When you refer it to the President, can you point out that this contribution was a direct contribution about an individual member of the other place. It was not about the Liberal Party; it was a direct attack on an individual. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Brockman. Senator Polley. Senator POLLEY e5x I think I've made my point. The point is that the Australian community know how divisive Mr Peter Dutton is, and Australians deserve so much better. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator POLLEY e5x Obviously they're very touchy on that side of the chamber. I'd be touchy too, if he were my leader, because he's not fit to be the Prime Minister of this country. (Time expired) Domestic and Family Violence 15 13:39 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland ():  This month in Australia six women were murdered in just one week, five of them killed by men they knew. This is an epidemic, and we must do more as a nation and as a government to tackle men's violence against women and their children. Today is day 4 of the UN's 16 days of activism campaign where every year the world recommits to ending sexual and physical violence against women. But how can we end domestic, family and sexual violence when we don't have the data needed to fully understand the scope of the problem—the how, why, where and when to address it for effective prevention, early intervention and violence reduction strategies? We need government to fund a repeatable national study of perpetrators of domestic, family and sexual violence to more fulsomely understand what drives their behaviour. The Perpetration Project, a partnership between the Accountability Matters Project, QUT and the Equality Institute, is currently proposing a model for a national prevalence study that, if funded, would be a game changer in how we view the pernicious problem of violence against women and their children. It would take a proactive to stopping people using violence and shift the focus and burden off survivors and onto perpetrators, where it belongs. We also need to understand what works in the prevention space if we are to eliminate violence against women. Respect Victoria is currently developing a pilot project that would evaluate prevention programs, respectful relationships education in schools, programs in sporting clubs and workplaces, and men's behaviour change programs, to help assess what's working best and help them be more tailored and targeted across communities. Governments should be funding both these bodies of research as well as fully funding frontline services to match the urgency of the epidemic of men's violence against women. I urge the government to use all the levers they have to eliminate men's violence against women and their children. Western Australia: Bushfires 16 13:41 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Today, I rise to talk about the catastrophic bushfire that hit the Perth area of Wanneroo a little under a week ago. This bushfire was devastating in size and scope, and it resulted in the tragic loss of 18 homes, damage to many businesses in the region, numerous displacements—over 200—into emergency shelters and widespread power outages. The impact of these devastating bushfires will be felt by the Wanneroo community, in particular, for many years, as will the impact on those who had to wait for many days for the bushfires to be brought under control before they could be certain that their homes were safe. I commend very sincerely all of the emergency services personnel, particularly DFES, who contained the fires and facilitated evacuations. I also commend the Mayor of Wanneroo, Linda Aitken, and the entire team at the city, who have worked tirelessly to respond and support their community. Natural disasters inflict not only physical but mental scars. There are now many sources of support available. First of all, assistance is available through the Commonwealth-state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements and the Premier's relief payment program. I note also that the Lord Mayor of Perth has initiated the Lord Mayor's Distress Relief Fund. I would encourage all of those who have been impacted by those fires to seek assistance through the many channels that are now available. I would say, on one sour note, it was very disappointing to see the Premier go up into the area to do a press conference and then leave without once picking up the phone to speak to the mayor and the local council. Capital Grants Program 16 13:43 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Last week, I had the privilege of visiting the St Jakobi Lutheran School in Lyndoch, South Australia. It was wonderful to join the students, teachers and their broader community and see the new facilities that have been funded, under the Capital Grants Program, by the Australian government. A grant of $274,000 was provided to help the school, as part of its significant capital works program, to bring the school up to a standard to support that community. These new facilities are going to make a real difference to the school, the teachers and the students, providing an environment where the teachers can nurture those children and their ambitions. When I was talking to the students out there, they were obviously deeply excited about the new build, the ability to see into the vineyards from the classroom, and the fact that their multipurpose classrooms now have doors that open up onto a deck, so they can actually work in small groups out on the decking. It really enhances their learning and their ability to engage with the environment around them. These facilities, and facilities just like them, are being opened all around the country as part of the Australian government's Capital Grants Program. It enables schools to find that extra money to enhance the learning and facilities that they offer for their students. But, at the end of the day, it's not the building that delivers these things; the building is just an enabler. It's those people who work across our education system and nurture our children. We want every child, no matter where they live, to have the best schooling possible. Defence Personnel 16 13:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania During question time just a few weeks ago, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence why the defence minister was giving our diggers a pay cut for Christmas. I asked him why the minister and the Chief of the Defence Force were behaving like the Grinch. The minister's response to the fact that our ADF is bleeding members has been to give our soldiers, aviators and sailors a pay rise below the rate of inflation—which, of course, is a pay cut. As we heard in the last round of estimates, the Australian Defence Force over the last two years has lost nearly 8,000 members. It's pretty clear to me and most veterans out there why this is happening. It's because of pay and conditions. What comes to mind with those two words? It's unions. But diggers and veterans don't have a union, you see. They rely on the Chief of the Defence Force and the minister to stand up for them, to stand beside them and to fight for them all the way. The Australian Public Service, on the other hand, has the CPSU, who have been lobbying hard for their members. Three days ago, they announced that the government has offered an additional payment to employees that is the equivalent of 0.92 per cent of an employee's salary. CPSU workers will get this payment as a lump sum, and they don't have to wait for the Fair Work Commission to tick off on it. How about that! In May 2022, the now Prime Minister said a Labor government would ensure Defence 'has the resources it needs'. He does realise that people are resources, right? Does the government realise that our sailors, soldiers and airmen are actually resources? It is time to fix this. If you want to keep people in our military, I suggest you start standing up for them. The Minister for Defence should direct the Chief of the Defence Force to give our diggers a proper pay rise, and, while he's at it, he should ask the CDF to resign. Then the minister should go shopping for a new portfolio, I can assure you, because that's a Christmas present that all the diggers will be able to get behind. Barossa Gas Project 17 13:47 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Yesterday, I was grateful to meet members of the Top End Aboriginal Coastal Alliance, who represent the Tiwi Islands, Arnhem Land and other areas across Northern Australia. It's concerning to hear the Greens talk on behalf of traditional owners to oppose gas extraction when, today, we have traditional owners right here in our Senate chamber talking to members of this parliament of their desire to see the Santos Barossa Gas Project go ahead. The group came to Canberra so they could speak directly to politicians about their support for Santos's Barossa offshore gas project and make them aware that statements opposing it are not shared by all traditional owners. In the words of one member of the alliance: It is a fact that most remote and regional First Nations peoples of the Northern Territory are living in poverty. The Barossa Project presents a desperately needed opportunity for us to improve our living standards and to close the gap. We decided to support the Santos Barossa Project because they are supporting us. Our peoples will support Barossa because of the opportunity it presents. We hope that other companies will come and talk to us about their Offshore Activities in the same respectful way that Santos has engaged us, and with the same level of commitment to working in partnership with our peoples. Because of this poverty and poor living conditions, we are confident that when people hear and see about the benefits that the Barossa Project is proposing, most First Nations peoples from across the Top End will turn to support the Barossa Project. We ask the Federal government to help build support for the offshore sector … I would encourage every parliamentarian, both here and in the other place, to take the opportunity to meet with this delegation. Thank you for your time and for coming to the Senate. Health Care 17 13:49 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland This week, I was in Townsville. I was very pleased to be there to announce that the urgent care clinic in Townsville will be opening on 18 December. A provider has been found, and I was very pleased to visit the Eastbrooke Family Clinic in Townsville and to talk to them about exactly what this urgent care clinic will mean for the people of North Queensland. We were joined there by the ambulance service, the hospital, people and GPs to talk about exactly what an urgent care clinic will do. What we heard directly from the community is that this urgent-care clinic will take the pressure off the emergency department there in Townsville, and it's really welcomed. It's something we committed to before the election—to deliver urgent-care clinics across the country—and that's exactly what we're doing. I'm really pleased to say that this is one of 11 Medicare urgent-care clinics that we are announcing in Queensland, and we are getting started before the end of the year. So far, we've had urgent-care clinics in Bundaberg, Gold Coast, Ipswich, Logan, North Brisbane, Murrumba Downs, South Brisbane and Toowoomba, and Townsville has opened just this week. We're looking forward to the clinics in Cairns and Rockhampton opening shortly too. While we hear from so many people in regional Queensland that getting in to see a GP and making it more affordable is so important to them and their families, we have heard complete silence on all these issues, including health and housing, by the Liberal and National members who supposedly represent these electorates in regional Queensland. It has been really disappointing to see them focus on nasty politics and dividing our country instead of getting in there and advocating for better housing, for better health care, for more jobs and for more manufacturing. It's as if they've been asleep at the wheel. It's as if they've switched off. It's time for them to wake up and listen to people from regional Queensland. Middle East 17 13:51 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Ceasefire now! The people of Gaza need more than a temporary truce, with the Israeli government flagging that they'll continue the war with full force after the truce, including moving into southern Gaza. This is not self-defence after the horrific acts of Hamas. This is war that is putting Palestinian people at grave risk of genocide. Aid agencies on the ground in Gaza have told us there have now been 20,000 people killed—70 per cent of them women, children and the elderly. There are now 1.7 million people displaced, and for the 800,000 people remaining in northern Gaza there is a huge risk of famine and disease. Sewage is overflowing in the streets. Waste and blood and corpses are scattered in the streets. Gaza needs 800 trucks a day to bring in food, fuel and water—way more than the 120 a day that have come in over the last few days. Gazans needs to be able to extract the bodies the estimated 6,600 bodies that remain under the rubble. Gazans need a permanent ceasefire now. There are three things the Australian government should be doing right now. Firstly, we must call upon the Israeli government to implement a ceasefire now. We must stop pretending that Israel is complying with international law when it's crystal clear that it has committed war crimes over the last month, disproportionately killing civilians, bombing hospitals, cutting off food, water and fuel, and collectively punishing a whole population. Secondly, we must take action under the multiple treaties and international agreements that we have signed to prevent war crimes. Thirdly, Australia must increase its aid. The people of Gaza need $1.2 billion over the next six months. Currently, we have committed 1.2 million. Please join our call. Ceasefire now! Economy 18 13:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Rent for a one-bedroom apartment now costs more than 75 per cent of the JobSeeker rate in every Australian capital city. As costs continue rising, the RBA continue increasing interest rates. As mortgage repayments go up, property owners increase rents to cover their expenses. The cycle continues, with renters and mortgage holders getting worse off with each rate rise. But where is all the cash being pulled out of the economy actually going? It's going to the banks. It's going to the banks, who are reporting billions of dollars in record quarterly profits. The RBA say they have no other option because the cash rate is their only tool, and the government says they have no other option because the RBA is independent. The people I'm hearing from in our community want decision-makers to consider other tools for managing inflation. When the economy is overheated, why not require people to save more of their income by shifting it into their super? Doing so would reduce spending without robbing everyday Australians of their hard-earned money and without lining the pockets of the big banks. We did the inverse during the pandemic, allowing people to access their super to stimulate the economy. I spoke last week with a Canberran named Robert, who put forward this idea. Robert recently stopped working, following a terminal cancer diagnosis. He became tearful as he told me how life savings, intended for his children, are being eaten up by interest rate rises. It's just not fair. We need to have a serious conversation in this place about how we tackle inflation without punishing people like Robert and the hundreds of thousands or millions of others across the country. Northern Territory: Gas Industry 18 13:55 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I, too, draw attention to the presence in the public gallery of the Top End cultural alliance. Hello. Welcome. I see you; I hear you; so do my colleagues. I respect that you support gas projects in- and offshore in the Northern Territory. Your views are, however, invisible to the Labor Party, the Greens and some independents because you do not fit their ideological narrative. You are right to be gutted that, despite travelling so far from the Top End, the Prime Minister and the Greens did not meet with you. You aren't the elite, self-appointed leaders those opposite celebrate, yet you hold so much important knowledge, as remote community elected leaders with cultural authority to respect and represent your communities. Yet the Greens and Labor and some, though not all, of the independents are happy to trample your aspirations, your dreams, your inherent rights and your legislative rights and interests. They talk of UN declarations, free, prior and informed consent and self-determination, and pay respect to traditional owners, but it's talk. It's the height of paternalism, when, on pursuing your rights and interests as the traditional owners for gas industry participation, they fail to recognise that you want the same things that they take for granted—efficient infrastructure, training and employment—and that, at the same time, you'll protect country, community and culture. Labor, you may have doubled funding for the environmental ranger program, but they know they can aspire to be pilots, lawyers, doctors and teachers. Just get out of their way. And, Labor, why don't you speak to your mates in the unions—the teachers who are out there lobbying in the Northern Territory, against the gas industry, in schools? Why not get on with the job of teaching the curriculum? It gets worse. Labor, when you funded the activists at the Environmental Defenders Office, you ignored free, prior and informed consent, their rights and interests under native title, United Nations principles and self-determination. (Time expired) Immigration 18 13:57 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The Albanese Labor government is placing the safety of Australians and the security of our nation at risk by giving temporary protection visas to more than 860 Palestinians. For almost 20 years, Palestinians in Gaza have supported Hamas and their terrorist regime. Polling of Palestinians in recent years has shown that up to 70 per cent of them are supportive of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist group. And this Labor government wants to bring more than 860 of these people here—no doubt, to swell the ranks of those on Australian streets calling for the gassing of Jews. We have absolutely no assurance or guarantee that these people aren't heavily radicalised or that they're not members of active terrorist cells. Why is Labor bringing them in here to sow more antisemitism when they could find refuge in Muslim countries where their alien culture is more accepted? Why must they be allowed to come to our country, where we have values, freedom of religion and speech, secular democracy and the rule of law that are incompatible with theirs? Our housing crisis hasn't ended, by the way. It's worse than ever. Labor's housing policy is completely worthless, and their 30,000 homes will make no dent in the current shortfall of at least 650,000 homes. Yet Labor still insists not only on flooding our borders with hundreds of thousands of people every year but also now on giving temporary protection visas to another 2,000-plus people from the Middle East conflict zone. This is completely against the national interest, just like this appalling Labor government. I just met with a Jewish couple from Melbourne who stated that they no longer feel safe in Australia. Shame on this government for allowing these obnoxious hate-filled rallies to continue on our streets in this nation. We actually need to call for peace, by all means, but give the people the feeling they're safe on our streets. (Time expired) Youth Voice in Parliament Week 19 13:59 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I'm here to raise the voice of 18-year-old Tasmanian Aisha Bissett. Aisha says this: To create a safe and prosperous future for Australians, those in power need to prioritise climate action. Climate change is having enormous ecological, economic and humanitarian consequences, exacerbating issues like homelessness, food insecurity, poverty and global conflict. …   …   … We need change. We need stronger transparency, accountability, and community voices in the room where it happens. You in power need to listen and respond to the issues facing your people and commit to the solutions. Hear, hear! Aisha, we need more people like you in this place. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for senators' statements has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Environmental Defenders Office 19 14:00 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. Late last year, Minister Plibersek justified granting nearly $10 million of taxpayers' money to the Environmental Defenders Office by saying it was to 'help poor little farmers and local groups saving threatened species'. Given the EDO is now actively threatening, jeopardising and stopping a series of projects of critical importance to Australia, will Minister Wong not only admit that Ms Plibersek's excuses for the grant were wrong but also quantify how many jobs and how much investment in Australia has been lost because of the activities of this Albanese government funded organisation? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I would first make the point—and I'm not sure which matters Senator Duniam is referring to—that, if decisions are made in relation to environmental legislation which have an effect on development, they are decisions made by a judicial authority. What he seems to be suggesting is that we should avoid having the law of the land apply, by making sure we don't fund people. There are times, I'm sure, where I may not, others may not and members of this Senate do not agree with actions the EDO takes, but this is a body that provides legal advocacy. We do believe in the system of the rule of law. We do believe that individuals and entities have a right to be heard in our legal system, and this enables them to do that. I know those opposite want to shut down different voices. I know that's the approach you take. We all remember the gag clauses, don't we, that NGOs were funded with? I know that, despite your talk about freedom of speech, actually the institutions of a democracy, which include people taking legal action with which governments don't agree, are part of our system of democracy. Senator Duniam 263418 A point of order on relevance: my question was specifically, 'How many jobs are being lost and how much economic activity is being destroyed because of their funded activist organisation?' The PRESIDENT 112096 That was part of your question, but you also had quite a substantial lead-in to that question that went to the funding of the Environmental Defenders Office. I believe the minister is being relevant. Senator WONG 00AOU That's an interesting interjection, because the point is: if there are decisions made in relation to development applications, they are made in accordance with the law. These are made in accordance with the law. So what are you saying, Senator? The point is that in our democracy we do have a system in which people can take action, pursuant to the law, even if we don't agree. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a first supplementary? 14:03 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The taxpayer funded EDO is now running courses to teach activists how to become relevant persons under NOPSEMA's guidelines. Do you endorse the EDO engaging in claim farming and exploiting consultation loopholes to halt projects like the $16½ billion Scarborough project and the $5.8 billion Barossa development? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't take the same view, nor does the government take the same view, as the EDO in relation to the resources sector. But, unlike you, we don't feel the need to shut people down. Unlike you, we actually think that there is a legal system in place which ought protect the interests of all. If there are loopholes, as you assert, then they should be brought to the attention of the legislature and the executive. Essentially, your position is: 'We want to make sure that people with whom we don't agree don't have the capacity to take action.' We simply don't have the same view as you do about our judicial system and our legal system. My recollection is that those opposite put gag clauses into various NGO funding arrangements. You don't want organisations saying that what the government is doing is wrong. I mean, that's not democracy! (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a second supplementary? 14:04 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Given the havoc that the EDO—your taxpayer funded EDO—is wreaking on Australia's economy through green lawfare, will the government now do the right thing and withdraw the nearly $10 million of taxpayer money that it is providing to it? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would make the point in relation to EDO legal actions that, in fact, despite the fact that you didn't want them funded, they launched countless actions against you. The now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when minister, was challenged by the EDO in relation to a coalmine in north-west New South Wales, a coal project in the Galilee Basin, the Narrabri gas project, land clearing near the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Birmingham H6X Why do you need to fund them? Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Birmingham, what is the position that we have to make sure that we silence all voices with which we don't agree? That is the position you take. We on this side have a regard for our democracy. Senator Hume 266499 Really? Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, we do! We don't feel a need to silence those voices with which we don't agree. I don't agree with some of the actions the EDO has taken; as a cabinet minister and as member of the Labor Party, I don't. (Time expired) Immigration Detention 20 14:06 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. I refer to the recent High Court rulings which determined that successive Liberal and National party immigration and citizenship laws were unconstitutional. Given that the High Court struck down Mr Dutton's failed immigration and citizenship laws, what has the Albanese government done to keep the community safe since those decisions? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Thank you, Senator Walsh. Just a moment, Minister. Order on my left! 14:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland For the second day in a row it would appear that members of the opposition don't like their own record being pointed out to them. Senator Walsh, I thank you for your question. Unlike how those opposite operated while they were in government, on this side of the Senate, we believe it is important to ensure laws that protect the community can actually operate, because it is not tough talk that keeps Australians safe; it is tough laws that stand up in court. We are leaving no stone unturned in our efforts to protect the community and we haven't wasted a single day in doing so. The Australian Border Force and the AFP have been working hard to ensure community safety. The work they're doing is exceptional and I, for one—if not the opposition—thank them for their hard work. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I called the chamber to order on two or three occasions. That is what I expect, not for people to just ignore me and continue their very loud interjections. Senator WATT 245759 We continue our work to protect the Australian community. We have already introduced a range of steps including ankle bracelets, increased monitoring and curfews. We have provided additional support to our agencies, $255 million in total in extra support for these measures. We made it clear from the outset that we will consider options to strengthen laws further to protect Australia. We introduced a new bill to make strong laws stronger, a bill that the opposition voted against yesterday in the House of Representatives—for all their tough talk. We will work through the High Court's written reasons when they are handed down in a few minutes' time. Contrast this with the actions of some of those who sit in this chamber, because we see the opposition regularly say one thing and do another. The Leader of the Opposition talks tough on border but he slashed funding for compliance staff when he was the Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Dutton talks tough on crime but, under his watch, sexual exploitation of migrants, and organised crime and people trafficking skyrocketed. When we need leaders to protect people, Mr Dutton plays politics. This government sees the challenges in the world and is upfront with Australians about them. We don't play politics with national security or social cohesion and nor should the opposition. We won't repeat the mistakes made by the coalition in the past. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, a first supplementary? 14:09 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Yesterday the Senate heard that for years Mr Dutton and his coalition colleagues talked tough on national security but didn't deliver while in government. Why is it important to take strong action to keep the community safe and not just talk tough on national security? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment again, Minister. Order on my left! 14:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again we see lots of talk, lots of chat and lots of yelling from the opposition on matters of national security. The one thing that's missing is action. As home affairs minister Mr Dutton spent years telling us that he'd closed the back door to Australia. Now we find out that he left the front gate wide open and swinging in the breeze. His search for political division does nothing to make people safer. Let's not forget the mess that Mr Dutton left the Home Affairs portfolio in—a visa backlog of one million people and dodgy international education systems funnelling visa rorts every single day. Report after report found gaping holes in Mr Dutton's rorted visa system, which was letting criminals into the country—a visa system that allowed foreign organised crime syndicates into the country. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Carol Brown F49 You don't like to hear the truth. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brown! I'm waiting for order before I call the minister again. Minister. Senator WATT 245759 Mr Dutton's record is 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. What did he do in the wake of all of those reports? He cut compliance officers by 50 per cent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Senator McKenzie 207825 Where are the detainees? Have you found them yet? The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Senator Walsh. Please resume your seat. I expect when the senator is on her feet ready to ask her question that there will be silence so that we can hear the question. Senator WALSH 252157 Thank you, President. We know tough talk isn't enough to keep Australians safe. Why is it important to ensure tough words are matched with tough actions? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll wait for silence. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber. Minister Watt. 14:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Mr Dutton and his team have had a lot to say in the last couple of weeks about hardened criminals being released into the community, but it seems that they don't apply the same standard to their own senators. I was surprised to see weekend reports that a Liberal senator urged the Albanese government to release a child sex offender from immigration detention in circumstances similar to those the coalition is now politicising. In a letter to the immigration minister, Senator Dean Smith asked for a man convicted of having sex with a girl aged between 13 and 16 to be transferred from Christmas Island to the community. What have we heard from Mr Dutton? Absolute silence. Contrast that with Mr Dutton's remarks in 2021 when confronted with a similar situation. He said, 'Why would a member of parliament defend anyone who has been convicted of paedophilia?' For Mr Dutton there is one standard for the government and a different standard for his own people—utter hypocrisy. When it's one of his own calling for offenders to be released into the community he has nothing to say. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I have Senator Paterson on his feet waiting to ask his question. There needs to be silence. Senator Paterson. Immigration Detention 22 14:12 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Media reporting today revealed an immigration detainee who refused a mandatory electronic tracker was uncontactable by police following their release in response to the High Court decision earlier this month. Will the minister confirm whether there is an individual who was released from immigration detention currently residing in the community and uncontactable by our law enforcement agencies? 14:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Paterson, the short answer is that we trust the Australian Federal Police to do their job. This matter has been referred to the Australian Federal Police, and we trust them to do their job. Our government is putting in place the strict measures we need to make sure that, if one single individual violates their visa conditions, it's a criminal offence. I point out that only yesterday in the House of Representatives our government tried to amend tough laws to make them tougher. What did the opposition do? They voted against them, just like they voted against cost-of-living relief. They called for cost-of-living relief and they voted against it. They called for tough laws and they voted against them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, do you have a point of order? Senator Paterson 144138 On direct relevance, Madam President. I'd be interested to know how the opposition's alleged voting record is relevant to the question I asked about someone released into the community. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, I draw you back to Senator Paterson's question. Senator Paterson, the minister did answer your question when he first stood up. Please continue, Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 I did answer the question by saying that this matter is being investigated by the AFP, and we trust them to do their job. Now, Senator Paterson talks about the alleged voting record of the opposition. It's a matter of record; it's in the Hansard that yesterday the opposition voted with the Greens against our attempt to make tough laws even tougher. The only thing that's been alleged in the last couple of weeks that hasn't been true is Senator Paterson's allegation that there was a terrorist attack on the US-Canada border. He's content to go out there and make up stuff in order to whip up anxiety in the community, rather than actually working responsibly with the government to make our tough laws even tougher. Senator Scarr 282997 Point of order on impugning motive: he talked about my colleague Senator Paterson whipping up hysteria et cetera with that intent. That's clearly impugning motive. Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order, I think it's a reasonable political comment to respond to a very senior shadow minister talking about something as if it were a terrorist incident without being briefed and when it was not. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, I don't believe it was impugning the senator, but I will remind the minister and all senators in this place to be mindful of the language that's used when responding or making statements. Senator WATT 245759 To continue my answer, as the Border Force Commissioner said yesterday, the individual concerned has been referred to the Australian Federal Police, and this government does not comment on ongoing police matters. It would be highly irresponsible to do so. But Australians can be assured that all efforts are being made to track down this individual. In the meantime, our government will continue to put in place the tough measures that we need to make sure that, if one single individual violates their visa conditions, as is alleged to be the case at the moment, that will be deemed to be a criminal offence. These individuals have been released under the strictest possible visa conditions, and they are being monitored by a joint Border Force and AFP task force operation. If you're saying clearly not, you're having a go at the Federal Police. We're not going to do that; we're going to support the Federal Police in their job. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:17 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria When was this individual first released from immigration detention, and how long have they been out in the community without an electronic tracker? 14:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Of course, Senator Paterson, the ability to impose an electronic tracker, as you refer to it, was only possible after the legislation was voted on in this chamber when we last sat. I've made very clear that the Australian Federal Police and Border Force are making every attempt possible to locate this individual and ensure they comply with the law. And I dare say that they will be subject to criminal charges once they are captured. That's obviously a matter for the Federal Police, but I dare say that they will be subject to those kinds of criminal charges for breaching the visa conditions that were imposed on that individual. And I think they'll regret their actions. What we're focused on is ensuring that we have a tough correct response. We welcome the support the opposition provided us when legislation was passed here in the last sitting week, and I'm very surprised the opposition voted with the Greens yesterday against making those laws even tougher. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:18 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Legislation passed by the parliament in the last sitting week established a regime whereby high-risk individuals released from immigration detention are required to wear an electronic bracelet unless the minister is satisfied they don't pose a risk to the community. Does the minister agree that by definition the individual in question poses a risk to the community given they refused to wear an electronic tracker prior to going on the run? 14:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I say, this government has legislated in very quick time to make sure that Border Force and the AFP have the powers they need to monitor, impose curfews on and apply electronic bracelets to the people who have been released from detention as a result of a High Court order. Again I repeat: that stands in great contrast to the actions of your own Senator Smith who called for a convicted paedophile to be released from community detention without any monitoring, without any bracelets and without any actions whatsoever. We're actually trying to be responsible here and protect community safety, while you're out there applying one standard to the government and a completely different standard to your own people. When are you going to be consistent about this? If you're actually tough on these matters, then the same standards should apply to your own people, rather than having letters written to immigration ministers asking for convicted paedophiles to be released into the community without any monitoring whatsoever. We stand by our record and stand by our tough laws. Schools 23 14:19 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Minister Watt. Only 1.3 per cent of public schools in this country are fully funded, meaning teachers are burning out from being overworked and underpaid, while many students go without basic resources like textbooks, stationery and laptops. Teachers are increasingly having to pay personally for classroom materials, while out-of-pocket costs for parents and carers are ballooning. Results are declining and students are disengaged, with many unable to even attend school. Is the Labor government aware of the extent of the impact of the crisis of underfunding in public schools? 14:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne. This is a matter that you have asked questions about in the past, and my answer remains that there is only one way that public schools in this country are going to get the funding they deserve, and that is through the election of a Labor government. What we saw over 10 years was cuts to public education funding, and we have made very firm our commitment to deliver public schools with the funding that they need. Honourable senators interjecting— The 10000 Order across the chamber! Order! Senator McKenzie 207825 April Fool's Day next week! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie, you've had an awful lot to say. I invite you—it's Tuesday night—to put your name down for adjournment. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Doesn't it say a lot about the coalition that, when matters of fair funding for public education are raised, they laugh. Every single one of them thinks it's a laughing matter that public education doesn't receive the funding it deserves. I know that many Australians make a choice—they prefer to have a non-government school education for their children, whether it's because of their religious beliefs or for other reasons, and we will support the rights of those parents and families to choose that. What we will also do, unlike what we saw from the coalition, is ensure that public schools have the funding they deserve to deliver the high-quality education that I have chosen for my children. I went through it with my own education, and my family members have taught in the public education system. Please don't come and give me a lecture about public education when you are in a party that can never deliver a single cent of extra funding for public education. You can sit in the corner and throw rocks at other people, but it will only be a Labor government that delivers public education funding, and that is exactly what we are on track to do. Minister Clare has made it very clear that Commonwealth funding will continue to grow during the one-year extension of the current National School Reform Agreement. For public schools, this includes an increase from $10.6 billion in 2023 to $11.1 billion in 2024. We remain committed to working with the states and territories to get every school, public and non-state, 100 per cent of its fair funding level in the future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Allman-Payne, a first supplementary? 14:22 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Considering that evidence today shows that poorer kids are up to five years behind their richest peers in NAPLAN, does the Labor government believe that immediate action must be taken to stop this inequality being permanently baked into the system? 14:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Allman-Payne, yes. As I've made repeatedly clear, the Albanese government and any Labor government believes that public education needs its fair share of funding. We recognise the right of families to choose other forms of education for their children, and we will support those choices as well, but we do acknowledge that public education has been grossly underfunded under 10 years of coalition government, and we intend to reverse that. That is exactly why we entered a one-year extension of the current National School Reform Agreement—a school reform agreement which, under the coalition, saw public funding levels fall for public education. Under us, in just our one-year agreement, education funding is going to increase from $27.3 billion to $28.6 billion, including an increase of half a billion dollars for public schools alone. In the meantime, we are obviously in the process of negotiating a national school reform agreement with the states and territories, and we've made it very clear that we're committed to ensuring every school, public and non-public, receives 100 per cent of its fair funding level. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Allman-Payne, a second supplementary? 14:24 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I'm not sure that the minister actually accepts the scale and urgency of the crisis. Noting that it would only cost $6 billion to close the funding gap for our public schools, which is a third of what the federal government spends every year on private schools, how can the Albanese government justify not taking immediate action on the underfunding crisis? 14:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It wouldn't be question time without a Greens senator patronising everyone and telling us that we don't understand something, because that is a daily occurrence here. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, order! Senator WATT 245759 Last week it was Senator Shoebridge patronising us, saying that we wouldn't understand how the law worked. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, Order! Senator WATT 245759 Here comes the chief patroniser— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKim on a point of order? Senator McKim JKM Thank you, President. That was clearly a personal reflection on Senator Allman-Payne. It was false as well as being contrary to standing orders. It needs to be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKim, it does not need commentary. You may have noticed I was trying to call order. I was going to ask the minister to withdraw and remind the minister to make his comments through the chair. Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw, and I will ensure that I make all parliamentary and unparliamentary remarks through you, President, in the future—but I withdraw. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I didn't find that funny, and I would expect all senators in this place not to make unparliamentary remarks. Thank you, Minister. Senator WATT 245759 Thank you, President. Senator Allman-Payne, I can assure you that I do understand the need—through the chair, President. I can assure you, President, that I do understand Senator Allman-Payne's point. As I say, I don't need to take lectures from a Greens senator about public education, having been educated there myself and educated my kids there, and with almost my entire family being teachers in the public education system, but feel free to come in and give us a lecture any time. The Greens are good at giving lectures. What they are not good at is delivering anything for the Australian public. It is only a Labor government that is going to be delivering public education funding. Thank God we have a Labor government now to deliver the public education funding that we need, because we know it would never have happened under the coalition and we know that all schools wouldn't get the support that they need from a coalition government. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I will remind all senators in this place that the standing orders provide for a senator to stand and make a point of order, particularly about unparliamentary behaviour. That means all senators need to also question their own behaviour. It is not okay to interject and wildly point at the minister. National Security 25 14:27 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on the actions the Australian government is taking to uphold rules and norms in our region, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea? 14:27 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Marielle Smith, who understands the importance of international law to shaping a peaceful, stable and prosperous region for our people and for our nation. The observation of rules and norms in the region is what supports peace, security and stability, and Australia's support for international law is why we strongly support the 2016 South China Sea arbitral award, which is final and binding on the parties. Our continued support for international law and the arbitral award is also why the Deputy Prime Minister announced last week that Australia would conduct the inaugural Philippines-Australia maritime cooperative activity. This activity was the first joint sail between the Australian and Philippines armed forces in the West Philippines sea. The maritime cooperative activity included the Philippine navy vessels BRP Gregorio del Pilar and BRP Davao del Sur, the Royal Australian Navy frigate HMAS Toowoomba, five Philippine Air Force surveillance aircraft and an RAAF P-8A maritime surveillance aircraft. Our joint activity demonstrates our shared commitment to exercising freedom of navigation and overflight consistent with international law in support of a peaceful, stable and secure Indo-Pacific. We will continue to operate closely with our friends in the region, such as the Philippines, to advocate for the importance of international law. We're putting in the work engaging with our partners, repairing our international relationships and acting accordingly. Unlike Mr Dutton, we are not just talking tough and leaving a vacuum for others to fill, as we saw in the Pacific in the period of the Morrison government. I have often spoken in the visits I have made to South East Asia and beyond of the importance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is a vital national interest for Australia. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, a first supplementary? 14:29 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I note Australia's upgrade of our relationship to a strategic partnership following the Prime Minister's visit to Manila earlier this year, the first bilateral visit by an Australian Prime Minister in 20 years. Can the minister update the Senate on what practical steps we are taking to enhance our cooperation with the Philippines? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We are a government that is working to deepen Australia's relationship with the Philippines. The Prime Minister visited the Philippines in September this year to meet with President Marcos. I had the honour of visiting the Philippines to meet Secretary Manalo, which was one of several meetings we've had this year, including a two-plus-two with Minister Farrell in Adelaide. The Deputy Prime Minister has had productive meetings with his counterpart, Secretary Teodoro. One of the key outcomes of the Prime Minister's visit was the upgrade of our relationship to a strategic partnership, and a key tenet of that partnership is to deepen our strong maritime cooperation. This cooperation recognises that the Philippines is central to maintaining peace and stability in our region. For all of their tough talk, the Liberals had nine years and three prime ministers, and they couldn't manage one standalone visit to the Philippines. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, a second supplementary? 14:31 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Can you update the Senate on the steps the Albanese government is taking more broadly to secure our home, including through the AUKUS agreement and the Defence Strategic Review? 14:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The government has been working to repair our international relationships in order to make us stronger and more influential in the world, and we've done so consistently, we've done so calmly, and we've done so without compromising on what is important to Australians. That is why we are working to progress AUKUS, the agreement with our partners in the United States and the United Kingdom. That is why we are implementing the Defence Strategic Review. That's why we are working so hard to have open dialogue and close engagement with our friends and partners. Australia wants to contribute to a strategic balance, and that is what we are doing, because it is that strategic balance which underpins the stability, prosperity and peace that all of us seek. What we unfortunately have from Mr Dutton is the same failed old playbook. For nine long years, those opposite were more interested in gaining attention than getting outcomes, despite the fact that they themselves proved that shouting about national security did nothing to make Australia more secure. Nuclear Weapons 26 14:32 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. In October, at the UN General Assembly First Committee, Australia abstained on a resolution on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Instead of voting yes, Australia voted no due to an apparent concern with the line: … it is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons never be used again, under any circumstances. One hundred and thirty-six nations voted in favour of this resolution, which also notes that the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is their total elimination. If the government is as strongly committed to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament as it claims, why did it vote against the resolution? 14:33 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I'll make a point about the elimination of nuclear weapons. I know that those who advocate for the TPNW—and Senator Pocock did so in that question—construe the argument as if that is the only way one can demonstrate a commitment to nuclear disarmament. We disagree. We believe that the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I make the point that we already, as a country, have made a very clear commitment internationally that we do not have and will not seek nuclear weapons. We have legally binding commitments not to acquire, possess or have control over nuclear weapons under both the non-proliferation treaty on nuclear weapons and the Treaty of Rarotonga. There's no question that we recognise the devastating consequences for humanity of any use of nuclear weapons. What we do say is that we need to work with others to strengthen the NPT. We need to join with others, as we have, for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. We need to work with the IAEA—the International Atomic Energy Agency—to ensure the peaceful use of technology to combat proliferation and nuclear security risks. The government shares the TPNW's ambition for a world without nuclear weapons. We're committed to engage constructively to identify possible pathways to disarmament. As the senator will know, under this government we have determined to attend the two meetings of state parties under the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as an observer. We have chosen to abstain rather than vote against the UN General Assembly resolution, which I think is the reference the senator made—unlike the previous government. And we will continue to engage both with the UN process and with civil society, and we'll take a considered approach to the treaty. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a first supplementary. 14:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. There are many Australians who were puzzled by the abstention. I'm interested in knowing in what circumstances the government would consider the use of nuclear weapons and the ensuing humanitarian consequences acceptable? 14:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We all understand the horror of the use of nuclear weapons. The way you posited the question, Senator Pocock, suggested that that's the basis on which we made the decision we made. I have explained to you the framework that we're operating under. I think it's problematic that people choose not to put impetus behind the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; that is the treaty that has the nuclear parties as part of it, and we all know that nuclear armed states must be part of any nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. I understand why there are advocates, including from civil society, who want the TPNW. We all share that aspiration. But we also know that there has to be verification and there has to be— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a second supplementary. 14:36 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. I note that Japan supported that motion and, given that Labor has committed and, indeed, recommitted to signing and ratifying the TPNW, I'm interested in knowing when it will actually follow through with this? 14:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What we have said is that we will consider the treaty, including questions about its universality, its interaction with the non-proliferation treaty and the need to ensure effective verification and enforcement architecture. Those are reasonable propositions if you actually want a world that is free of nuclear weapons—if you actually want a world where we progress towards disarmament. You have to have universality and you have to have an 'I' to the NPT, which is the only treaty to which the nuclear parties are party. And you have to have verification and enforcement architecture. That is the logic of making sure you have progress on disarmament: you have to have verification and enforcement. That's a reasonable position. I understand the concern that people have and I would point you to the work that the government is doing, whether that's on the NPT, our attendance at the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons conferences or the— (Time expired) Workplace Relations 27 14:38 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Can the minister comment on the concerns raised by BHP in their submission regarding the same job, same pay policy, particularly in relation to the estimated $1.3 billion annual financial impact on their operations and the potential broader economic consequences, including inflation and productivity? 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Van. I have certainly seen the media reports of BHP's claims as to the extra costs that they would incur under the government's legislation. But I make absolutely no apologies for us, a Labor government, seeking to close the types of loopholes that large multinational corporations, like BHP, like Qantas and like a number of others, have exploited and which have resulted in the pay and conditions of their workers being undermined. One of the reasons I feel very confident in saying so is that I have met, personally, labour hire workers engaged at BHP mines in Central Queensland who have talked to me about the fact that they are paid significantly lower wages, with worse conditions, than the BHP permanent employees they work alongside. What has actually happened here is this. BHP has taken it one step further by effectively setting up an in-house labour hire firm, where, again, the employees of that labour hire firm, the parent company of which is BHP, are paid lower rates and conditions than the full-time BHP workers that they work alongside. I've met these people. I've talked to them about the fact that they can't afford the same things for their families as the permanent employees they work alongside. I think it is wrong, and the Albanese government thinks that it's wrong, that a large company can enter an enterprise bargaining agreement with its workforce, negotiated with the union—which is what BHP and others have done—and then get around that enterprise agreement by forming an in-house labour hire company or by bringing in labour hire from outside paid on lower rates and conditions than that company has itself negotiated. That is wrong. That is un-Australian. And we want to crack down on it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, a first supplementary? 14:40 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Could the minister provide insight into how the government plans to address the fears of significant job losses and the reduction in competitiveness in the mining sector, as highlighted by BHP, due to the financial implications of the same job, same pay policy? 14:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Van. I'd be obviously very happy to introduce you to some of those miners who I've spoken to and to take you through what's happening in the Queensland coalfields, and, no doubt, the Hunter Valley and other places as well. I may not have the most up-to-date information on this, but I certainly remember: when we had Senate estimates recently and I was briefed ahead of that, my understanding is that BHP have not provided any of the evidence to back up their claims as to what the extra costs on them would be. They've certainly provided information to the media, which have run their stories about the so-called extra costs that BHP will incur. But the other point here is that often the claim is made by these companies and members of the opposition that this is a cost to the economy to try to fix this up. Actually, what it's about is where the money goes. And what we're saying is: the money should go to the workers who produce BHP's profits, not end up in bigger profits for BHP and its shareholders. Fair is fair. Workers should get a fair deal as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, a second supplementary? 14:42 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Thank you, Minister, but I would guarantee I've met more miners than you have in your lifetime. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Senator VAN 283601 In the light of— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Order! Senator Van, I think we— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! We need to start the clock again, and we are wasting time here because I have called people to order and you continue to be disorderly. Minister—or Senator Van, please start the question again. Senator VAN 283601 Thank you for the promotion! In light of the concerns about increased labour costs and economic uncertainty, can the minister explain the rationale behind the same job, same pay policy approach, especially considering Australia's position as a major mining nation with already-high labour costs? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Van, and I have to say: I didn't see you at the Mining and Energy Union Queensland branch 115-year anniversary dinner the other night in Brisbane, but maybe you were there up the back. It was a very good night, I'm sure you will agree, if you were there! But on a serious note, Senator Van, the rationale for this is as I have explained: that we don't believe—and I don't think most Australians believe—that a company should have the right to enter an enterprise agreement with its workers, negotiated with the union, to pay certain rates and conditions and then be allowed, under the law, to either bring in labour hire workers who are employed by a another entity on lower wages and conditions, or to set up their own in-house labour hire firm, which is what BHP have done. Senator McAllister 121628 That sounds like a loophole. Senator WATT 245759 That does sound like a loophole, Senator McAllister, and it's a loophole that is resulting in workers, who work really hard in really difficult conditions, getting ripped off, to back-up the profits of large corporations. We obviously support profitable corporations, but we don't think that their workers should be exploited, and that's what's going on right now. (Time expired) Defence Industry 28 14:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Last night I had the privilege to go and see the Australian Industry & Defence Network Sovereign Capability Showcase. This event is a great opportunity for industry companies to show parliament why Australian defence technology capabilities are world-leading. The Australian Bushmaster is world-famous, but there's so much more going on. From drones all the way up to Hawkeis, we make all kinds of kit used by ADF here and overseas. I spoke to the vendors there, and, at stall after stall, I got the same message: that the Australian government is making it harder and harder for them to sell what they make. 'And why would that be?' I asked. 'Well, the government prefers to buy from foreign-owned manufacturers.' Minister, why is the Australian government making it harder for Australian defence companies to sell to the Australian government? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Lambie, and you are right; we do need a sovereign capability in this country. The decisions we have to make are in areas we have that sovereign capability. I regret that we've seen nine years of a lot of announcements under the previous government with very little capability actually delivered. We remember there were two submarine plans that were junked over the nine-year period. Senator Shoebridge 169119 How's your one going? Senator WONG 00AOU I'm sorry? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU Are you a Lib now? It is hard to tell sometimes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, I'm going to get you to go to Senator Lambie's question. Senator 00AOU He has gone quiet now, hasn't he? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, I am going to draw you to Senator Lambie's question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU They voted with you, actually. Would you like me to sit down or do you want me to continue? The PRESIDENT 112096 Could you take your seat for a moment. As I've said on previous occasions, the crossbench are entitled to have their questions asked in silence and to be responded to without interjection from other senators. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The Defence Strategic Review goes to many of the capability challenges, which are long lived, that we are working on. The government is also developing the defence industry development strategy in line with the election commitment. Minister Conroy gave a speech today to the National Press Club in which he spoke at length obviously not only about AUKUS but also about the Australian build of the SNN-AUKUS and more broadly about the importance of Australia's sovereign capabilities. I understand, as someone from South Australia, there's been a lot of different decisions made by past governments. There was the Defence Strategic Review, and I appreciate parts of industry may not have liked some parts of that and might have welcomed other parts. I know first-hand about the effect on the Australian Submarine Corporation of the various decisions the previous government made and the comments made in this chamber by a coalition defence minister—that those men and women couldn't build a canoe. But we do have faith in Australia's industry capacity to contribute to our— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania A number of Australian businesses last night told me they have set up shop in the US, in the UK and in other countries. They advised me that their success overseas is not recognised here and that even though they have products that are fit for purpose, cost effective and generally excellent, they are all considered too risky by the Department of Defence. Why are Australian companies being forced offshore to succeed? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): I might pick up the second-to-last point because that probably goes to the nub of the question—risk. Obviously, we are not an economy nor a military the size of the US military, nor do we have an industrial base of the scale that the United States has. What we can do is what we do well. We can focus on those things that we can do well and that we must do well—those areas where you have to have the sovereign capability onshore—and that's what the government is doing. I don't know what technologies you were referring to when those companies make an assessment that they've had to go offshore because the Department of Defence considers it too risky. The DoD has to make a decision, as you know. We put a lot of money and funds, as we should, into defence capability, and Defence has to make a judgement about which technology— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, a second supplementary? 14:49 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Another message I heard—and this doesn't surprise me—from the Australian businesses up there last night was that once AUKUS was announced the money dried up. This appears especially true of those selling to the Army. The few items that they were selling were suddenly not required. Tenders were cancelled. Our own Australian suppliers were left high and dry, often after huge amounts of money had been spent on research and development. Minister, why can't this government see that blocking innovation in the Australian defence industry is weakening our sovereign capabilities and making us less secure? 14:49 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Lambie. I can understand why there might be companies who will be disappointed with the government's determination and decision to make sure that the very substantial resource allocation is focused on the things that the DSR—the Defence strategic review—outlines as Australia really needing. And I appreciate that there will be private sector firms who have a different view to that. I think the authors of the DSR, Sir Angus and Mr Smith, made very clear their assessment of what was required and of which capability needs to be focused on, and that did require some hard decisions. Those hard decisions in relation to some capability are made in the context of increasing allocation to other capabilities, including submarines, for the strategic reasons that the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined. Gender Equality 29 14:51 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question this afternoon is for the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Women's economic equality is central to achieving gender equality. Gender equality at work is an important aspect of this, and today the Workplace Gender Equality Agency revealed that the gender pay gap has reduced by over one per cent—the biggest reduction in the gender pay gap in eight years. Can the minister please update the Senate on the latest gender pay gap figures and the work the government is doing to advance women's economic equality and close the gender pay gap? 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for the question and for the work that she's done over many years in addressing and seeking gender equality in Australia. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency released its 2022-23 gender equality scorecard today, and the scorecard confirms that the gender pay gap, as calculated by WGEA, has dropped 1.1 per cent to 21.7 per cent. And can I put on the record my thanks for the hardworking staff at WGEA. I had the opportunity to meet with them last week in person—and, for those staff that work outside the Sydney office, online—and I know they'd all been working incredibly hard to get this gender equality scorecard finalised and ready for release. The results of the scorecard are great. It's the biggest reduction since 2015, and it comes after the WGEA gender pay gap had stagnated over the last two years. That 1.1 per cent reduction might sound abstract, but it's the equivalent to narrowing the gap by $1,322 a year. However, there is much more work to do, with a gap the equivalent of $26,393 a year remaining. These results in the scorecard are from the largest-ever employer census, covering 4.82 million employees. The gap is calculated on total remuneration and on a full-time equivalent basis, which gives us a full picture of how men and women are faring in the workplace. WGEA is doing important work to help identify the drivers of the gap and where we need to focus our effort to close it. The data collected by WGEA is an invaluable resource and a critical evidence base. The data shows there are a range of issues that drive the gender pay gap as well as showing what is helping to close it. It helps us at an economy- and sector-wide level, but it also helps industries and individual employers understand where their challenges lie. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, a first supplementary? 14:53 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The minister mentioned that the Workplace Gender Equality Agency scorecard has presented a range of issues relevant to closing the gender pay gap and supporting women's economic equality. Can the minister please tell us more about those findings and any work the government is doing in these areas? 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for the supplementary. As everyone in this place knows, we will be reporting at an employer level on the gender pay gap next year, with those results available early next year. That will shine a real light on the gender pay gap and provide some transparency for employees and other employers as well. In terms of what's driving the closure of the gender pay gap, increased numbers of women in management positions are helping to close it. Workforce composition, the flexibility to manage work and care, and women's representation in leadership and senior roles underpin efforts to close the gender pay gap, but progress is still too slow. We have to keep working to address it. Some of our initiatives—domestic violence leave entitlements, gender targets in our Skills Guarantee and supporting pay increases in feminised aged-care sectors—are all connected efforts that go to closing the gender pay gap, valuing women's work and supporting women's economic equality. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, a second supplementary? 14:55 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So we can see that closing the gender pay gap is just one of the things that needs to happen in order for us to achieve women's economic equality. Can the minister outline the government's work to advance gender equality and how the government is working for women and working to make Australia a more equal country? 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for that second supplementary question. We can't separate economic equality for women from the rest of their lives—from caring responsibilities and their right to live free from violence. This is a government that understands these connections and understands that all the systems need to work for women if we are going to shift the dial on gender equality. As a government, we are coming at this from every angle. In the last two budgets, we've made the biggest investment in gender equality that we've seen for some time. We've modernised and expanded PPL, we've made child care cheaper, we've expanded parenting payment single and we've abolished ParentsNext. We've put a gender lens on our workplace relations system and supported pay rises for the lowest paid. We've invested a record $2.3 billion in women's safety, reformed the family law system, legislated paid domestic and family violence leave, and invested in housing for women escaping violence. There is much more work to do and our national strategy on gender equality will be released next year. (Time expired) School Strike for Palestine: Protests 31 14:56 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Watt. Last week, many school students skipped class to attend School Strike for Palestine protests, which Jewish community leaders warned would fuel division and antisemitism. As predicted by Jewish community leaders, antisemitic signs and slogans were ultimately displayed at these protests. Minister, what action did the Albanese government take prior to these protests to discourage attendance and encourage children to remain in school? 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Henderson. I actually saw Minister Clare deal with this matter—I think it was in question time—in the House of Representatives, where he made very clear that his expectation, as the Minister for Education, is that students should be at school during school hours. He did that in probably the most public forum we have in this country. Ultimately, decisions about the operation of schools are matters for state and territory governments and the non-government school sector, but the minister's position on this was utterly clear. More broadly, what we have also said is that we think it's important that all of these matters be put in a non-partisan and non-inflammatory manner. I'd encourage all senators, in approaching and discussing these issues, to recognise that there are members in all parts of our community who are extremely upset about the events that are going on at the moment. Of course, we recognise that the Jewish community is going through great pain in our community at the moment, as a result of events in the Middle East. Equally, members of our Islamic communities are going through great pain as well. I'd encourage all senators, again, to consider that in terms of their public contributions on this topic. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, a first supplementary? 14:58 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, with reports of antisemitism rising across the world and, tragically, also in Australia, what steps is the Albanese government taking to actively counter antisemitic material which targets young people and school students? 14:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Henderson, again, I would make the point that, unfortunately, we are seeing antisemitism on the rise in our community and right across the world at the moment, as we are also seeing Islamophobia increasing and on the rise across the community. I think it is important that all Australian politicians recognise that both of these things are occurring, that both are wrong and that both need to be condemned. Antisemitism needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, as does Islamophobia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson ZN4 A point of order on direct relevance: I asked about what steps the Albanese government is taking to actively counter antisemitic material which targets young people and school students. If the Minister could address that question, please. The 10000 I will remind the minister of your question. Senator WATT 245759 That's precisely why I was making the point that we need to recognise that antisemitism is abhorrent and that Islamophobia is abhorrent in our communities, and both need to be condemned. That's why the Australian government has developed a social cohesion package to support Australian communities affected by the ongoing conflict, including a $25 million grant to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and $25 million to the Australian Palestinian, Muslim and other communities. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Henderson, a second supplementary? 15:00 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The Australian Education Union in Victoria encouraged attendance by teachers and students at these protests, while the New South Wales Teachers Federation is encouraging teachers to bring action into classrooms. Does the Albanese government condemn this union activism, which is only serving to promote division in Australia? 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've already pointed out the minister's answer, which was that, in his view, all schoolchildren should be at school. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 31 15:01 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of all questions without notice asked by coalition senators today. What we saw in question time today, and have seen from the conduct of the government over many months, is that they do kind of miss Joel Fitzgibbon. They really do miss Joel. I miss Joel. I think lots of us miss Joel. This government in particular really misses people like Joel Fitzgibbon, who actually stood up for the rights of workers, stood up for their jobs, and stood up for their industries that helped them pay for their homes and put their kids through school. But, instead, we now have a mob that, notionally, is meant to protect workers' rights but is instead funding the very radical activists that want to put those workers that they're meant to represent out of a job. It was Joel Fitzgibbon himself over the past week who, at a conference, called out his former Labor colleagues for funding the Environmental Defenders Office, a group of radical climate activists—and I will get to that in a second. Mr Fitzgibbon, a respected statesman of the Labor Party, called his colleagues out, saying they were 'handing taxpayers' money to activists and financing job-destroying legal challenges'. That's exactly what they're doing. In fact, in recent months the EDO has been using the money that it receives from this government and other governments to defend an individual, Mr Emil Davey, in the courts in Western Australia. Mr Davey has been exposed on CCTV footage scoping out the home of the Woodside CEO just before the infamous protest that occurred there a few months ago. So we have this complete and utter grub here who is scoping out other people's homes. He publicly did this. The government did condemn this conduct, or they did publicly say they didn't accept that protests should occur at people's homes. He's now in court, being charged with helping organise this terrible trespassing of someone's home, and it's the Labor government that is helping the organisation defend him. That's the Labor government, the people that say they represent workers and say they represent the resources industry that provides good, paying jobs for millions of Australians. They are funding these people who want to put them out of a job. Karl Marx said that it would be the bourgeoisie that dug their own graves. Well, it is the Labor Party here who are funding their own gravediggers by not taking the warnings of Marx, which is quite ironic. If we want to defend jobs in this country and if we want to defend the industries that help fund this whole place in a way, we should not be funding these activists. The other day it was revealed that half of the company tax revenue that the government are receiving to fund their runaway spending is now coming from the resources industry. It's coming from coal, gas, iron ore, copper, gold and lithium. It's coming from all of those industries, yet here we have a situation where the government is funding the organisations that want to kill that goose that's laying the golden eggs for our nation. Worse than that, by funding one of these groups, the government is disenfranchising other groups that certainly don't have the resources of large-scale green activist organisations. Some of these organisations have budgets of tens of millions of dollars. This week we've had a group of First Nations people from the Northern Territory who want to see the Barossa project go forward. They want to see gas developed in the waters off the Northern Territory because they view that it will provide their communities with jobs, opportunities and an economic future. Where is the assistance for that group? We had Senator Wong say here today that she supports democracy and she supports helping all these different groups that are underfunded. I don't think green activists are underfunded—not these days, anyway. Certainly this First Nations group from the Northern Territory is underfunded. Where is the funding for them? Why aren't they getting assistance from this government in their fight against a radical greens movement that often goes to Indigenous communities and divides those communities. It tells them a bunch of fairytales and holds their hand while the challenge is on, but as soon as their job is done and the challenge in court is successful they desert them, and there is no future for those towns or areas of our country. The government has to be called out here because it says that it's for jobs and it's for these industries but it's funding the very people who want to kill them. 15:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales At the outset I was going to offer some commentary about what happened in question time. I was distracted slightly by Senator Canavan's outline of Marxist principles in his response. It always takes a former student Trot to clearly— Senator AYRES 16913 Well-read on these questions and probably has copies of the Australian and the Green Left Weekly in equal measure arriving in his office. There's the extraordinary hypocrisy of this assault on government funding for the Environmental Defenders Office. That there's a series of publicly funded extremists over there worrying about publicly funded radical action is a pretty extraordinary prospect. We're approaching the halfway point of the last sitting fortnight. I'll tell you what we do know about this opposition and their line of questions this year. Instead of reflecting on the election results, considering their own political position and tacking back to the centre of Australian politics, where Australians want to see the political debate focused on the issues that matter for Australians, they have been baking in a hard-right extremist agenda and the most extreme hard-right leader of the Liberal Party in its history, Mr Dutton. That is what has happened here. It's all negative. It's all shouty. It's all angry. There are no solutions. There is no constructive approach to any of the problems that Australian families or the country are facing. It is hyperpartisan. It takes a link out of the sort of mouth-breathing extremist fringe of United States politics and the sort of face-to-camera pieces for social media that some of these characters indulge in. What Australians want from political leaders is consistency. Minister Watt pointed out the reports in the media about the letter Senator Smith wrote on behalf of a person who was convicted of a sexual offence in relation to a child. Letters from senators carry weight, because of their position. A sense of clarify about these kinds of offences is important. That's not the point. The point is: what has Mr Dutton's approach to these questions been? Well, at every chance that he gets he shouts, 'Paedophile, murderers, rapists.' But, when it comes to a letter written by one of his own senators in support of a person who very much fits that criminal profile, what do we hear from the Leader of the Opposition? Silence. You could hear a pin drop. When it's in his political interests, Mr Dutton shouts, 'Paedophile, rapists, murderer.' All of these people, by the way, have had to be released into the community because of his broken, dud legislation that he took no action to resolve. Always the tough talk but never the tough action. For Mr Dutton it gets worse. When the then New South Wales opposition leader Judi McKay, who's a very good person, made an error that cost her the leadership of the New South Wales Labor Party and wrote a much less focused and more innocuous letter in relation to a person who'd committed similar offences, what did Mr Dutton say? He said her position was completely untenable. 'She's in big trouble and she is digging furiously. How many other criminals has she supported?' He is a tough-talking blowhard when it comes to people that he opposes, but he's soft and quiet when it comes to the same things happening on his own side. And he was nowhere to be seen when his dud legislation put the government in the position that it's been in. 15:12 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to make my contribution to the motion moved by Senator Canavan. We've just seen an example of a government under pressure, a government that's not prepared to argue its own case on its own activities. It isn't prepared to offer a defence of the things that it's doing. It just gets nasty and it just gets personal. That's the only defence that this government has. It rolls up the nasty, cranks up the personal and attacks individuals on this side of politics. That's all it's got. They can't defend the fact that they are funding the Environmental Defenders Office, which is attacking jobs in salmon farming in Tasmania, which is attacking forestry jobs around the country, which is undermining the work rights and the opportunity to work of workers in this country. Senator Canavan quite correctly identified Mr Fitzgibbon, the chair of the Australian Forest Products Association, as saying: But it makes no sense to hand taxpayers' money to activists so they can take legal action against the very government that gave them the money. That's what's happening here. Activists funded by rich donors and, indeed, governments, through the Environmental Defenders Office, are challenging value-creating projects in the law courts. That's what Mr Fitzgibbon said. And that's what this government are prepared to do—to defend. They'll come out and attack Mr Dutton. That's all they have got. But they won't defend their own actions. They won't defend their own policies, because they can't. Workers around this country—and I can tell you workers in my home state of Tasmania—are furious at the situation they've been placed in, in relation to the salmon industry. That industry is being attacked by the Environmental Defenders Office over a decision that was made by a Labor minister in 2012, 11 years ago. If Minister Plibersek upholds the attack by the Environmental Defenders Office, for the first time it will open up a decision under the EPBC Act for a project that's been underway for that period of time. And what does that mean? It means it will creates a precedent for every single approval under the EPBC Act. That's what the actions of the Environmental Defenders Office in Tasmania against the salmon industry right now will do. That's what this government won't defend: they're not prepared to stand up and defend that. They talk about everybody's voices being heard, but these environmental groups—funded by rich donors who want to make their environmental conscience salved—aren't short of money, and they're taking action all around the country. Potentially, they could undermine every single decision made by an environment minister under the EPBC Act if Minister Plibersek creates the precedent that sits before her right now. That's a matter for the workers in the $1 billion Tasmanian salmon industry that's under threat through this process, but think of all the other projects. I have spoken to plenty of other Labor figures over recent weeks who understand this in a heartbeat, that, potentially, the precedent set by Minister Plibersek opens up every single environmental decision made under the EPBC Act. That's a genuine threat, and the government isn't prepared to stand up and defend that. Their funding of the Environmental Defenders Office puts all these projects under threat. All they can do is attack Peter Dutton. They're completely and utterly void when it comes to defending their actions. They are now the government; they're the ones making the decisions, and they should be prepared and have the courage to stand up and take responsibility for their decisions. But they can't. They can only do one thing: ramp up the personal, bring out the nasty and attack one individual. The real issue that's concerning Australians right now is decisions being made by this government to fund the Environmental Defenders Office, which is attacking the jobs of workers around the country. They should be prepared to stand up and defend that process, but they won't—they'll only attack Peter Dutton. 15:17 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I note that people in this chamber today, like those across Australia, will be remembering the permanent panic—the constant fear and alarm—that was the characteristic of the previous government. Everyday Australians would wake up and there would be another crisis, another disaster or another problem. They had everyone absolutely revved to the max with anxiety. And they think that's going to work for them again. That's why we heard that ridiculous defence from my colleague on the other side of the chamber there, who said that we're obsessed with Mr Dutton. That side might be obsessed with Mr Dutton, but we are obsessed with making sure that we govern with responsibility, with care and with dignity, and always mindful that we serve the Australian people. That is why they want to talk about their leadership—which is a joke, by the way. I want to put on the record the words of my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs in the other place, Clare O'Neil, because this is what's really going on here. She said about the Albanese Labor government: We have only one priority and that is protecting the safety of the community within the limits of the law. Today we were asked a question by Senator Paterson about individuals being released from detention. Let me tell you that, instead of all the fear and alarm, when the High Court decided to overturn 20 years of precedent and law, and delivered its judgement, the Labor Party, in government under Mr Albanese, respected that law because that is what we have to do. We are in here making law and we cannot break the law. That law meant that people who were in immigration detention had to be released because of the law of the land. We got to work; we were already preparing. We immediately brought legislation to this parliament to make sure that we put the safety of Australians first. That's what we did. And those opposite voted against bringing in protections, but not just protections under law and bringing in immediate legislation. We put $255 million into the job, and we put $88 million into the AFP. We put $150 million into the Australian Border Force and $17 million into the Department of Public Prosecutions because that's what responsible governments do. They accept the law. They create good law in response to changing situations. You fund what has to be done. Instead we had Mr Dutton. Let's look at his record. We had years and years of him telling Australians that he closed the back door to Australia, but now we find out that he left the front gate wide open and swinging in the breeze. He searched for political division. His priority wasn't the safety or the mental health and wellbeing of Australians. His priority was to sow seeds of division—one Australian against another. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 A point of order, Senator Fawcett? Senator Fawcett DYU Imputing motivation to a member or senator. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator O'Neill, I ask you to restrain yourself, and I just clarify: are you seeking withdrawal? Senator O'NEILL 140651 I can understand why those— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator O'Neill, Senator Fawcett is seeking withdrawal, so I ask you to withdraw with the proper conduct of the chamber. Senator O'NEILL 140651 I withdraw, but let's look at the record. Mr Dutton left us with a visa backlog of a million people. He cut compliance officers by 50 per cent. And, for all his talk about being tough on boat arrivals, who can forget that we found a boat floating up the Daintree River? Who can forget the disgraceful text messages affair on election day? Talking tough might get you some headlines, and it might get you on a few television shows, but being in government is not about getting on TV and getting a two-minute grab. It's about doing the hard yards. It's about getting policy right. It's about being consistent in what you say and what you do, and what we've seen is a huge difference between what Mr Dutton says and what he does. In 2021, Mr Dutton said: 'Why would a member of parliament defend anyone who has been convicted of paedophilia?' On Sunday this week, we heard from the West Australian that one of Mr Dutton's own assistant ministers here in the chamber, Senator Dean Smith, did exactly that. He has written letters in support of a paedophile who was convicted of sex with a 13-year-old and a 15-year-old. Mr Dutton has said nothing about that, yet he continues to claim that he's out there looking after the Australian people. There's only one party that will defend the safety of the Australian people. That is the Labor Party. What you'll see from Mr Dutton and his colleagues is constant alarm and fear and nothing else. 15:22 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I will respond to the comment that has just been made that there's only one party who will defend the Australian people. I can think of no better words to use than those of someone who is probably one of Australia's recognised pre-eminent journalists when it comes to foreign affairs and defence matters—someone who has been critical of my own side of politics. He has written in the Australian just this week: The Albanese government is coming apart in foreign policy, national security and defence. It has become incoherent and indecipherable. It consistently tries to hide basic information, can't maintain cabinet unity or policy consistency, its ministers frequently contradict each other and often seem to have no idea what they're talking about. I think that describes the fact that, in relation to the issue that was raised by my colleague Senator Paterson that we've just been hearing about from those opposite, the government was caught flat-footed in terms of responding to the High Court decision. As they said, the court made a ruling and the government needs to respond to that and respect it, but the fact is that a government that governs well anticipates these possible outcomes and actually plans what they will do in order to respond to them. So the comments by Mr Sheridan not only in this area but particularly in the area of defence and national security are, I think, apt, and the Australian people would be well served by looking not at what is said but at what actually happens. I come back to Mr Sheridan and another part of his article, where he says: The government started off well— and he's mentioning here China but security issues generally. Albanese made strong, substantial speeches in opposition. But now it looks as though those were purely designed to neutralise national security as an election issue. So it's important to look at what the Albanese government does, as opposed to what it says. Can I come to the other issue that was raised by coalition senators at the start of the debate, which is the funding of the Environmental Defender's Office. My colleagues mentioned Mr Joel Fitzgibbon. As a former staunch and very high-profile member of Labor governments, he has criticised this funding. Why has he done that? He has done it for a number of reasons. He has mentioned the fact that it kills jobs and investment, but why is that investment important? That investment is important because when I speak to constituents in South Australia, my home state, the No. 1 priority—and the No. 2, No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5 priorities—they raise with me is the cost of living, and central to that is the price of electricity. Far from the reduction of $270-odd dollars that was promised by this government multiple times before the election, South Australian prices have gone up, on average, by $512 for households and $1,310 for small businesses. That's 24 per cent for households and 29 per cent for small businesses. That is hurting people. It's hurting the ability of small businesses to remain viable and employ people, and it's hurting households. That's not to mention mortgages and other things. Part of the reason those prices are going up is that, more and more, gas is becoming one of the baseload power sources in the market, and supply is constrained. According to the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the east coast may well run short of gas as soon as 2024 because of supplies being constrained. This could force prices to spike, increasing electricity bills, and cause gaps in the energy market. Why is this happening? Partly it's because groups like the Environmental Defenders Office, now with money from the Albanese government, are taking action against groups like Santos, a good South Australian company that for many decades has been responsibly providing the nation with energy. Its Barossa gas project, off the Northern Territory coast, was stopped in its tracks. Even though Santos had followed all of the requirements, according to the well-proven and established regulations, for consultation, it was stopped by the Environmental Defenders Office taking action on behalf of a group within the Tiwi Islands. This government is not good for Australia's defence, nor is it good for the cost of living. Question agreed to. Schools 35 15:27 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to public schools. Today I asked questions of the minister to see whether the government really understands the scale and urgency of the underfunding crisis in our public schools. I have to say I don't think the government really understands those things at all. In response to my questions, the minister essentially said three things. He said that if we want to see full funding of public schools we need to elect a Labor government, he said that they're giving parents choice, and then he resorted to personal attacks directed towards me. We are 18 months into a Labor government and we still do not have full funding of our public schools. What we do have is the can kicked down the road with regard to the National School Reform Agreement. There's to be another review, of which we've had countless over the last decades, and a new NSRA that's not going to start until 2025. If we even get close to full funding of our public schools when that agreement starts, we will be nearly at the end of the first term of a Labor government. If we get full funding by 2028, we'll be almost two terms into a Labor government. Given the current state of the polls, that's assuming they even get re-elected. The matter of public funding of our public schools is urgent. When I stand up in this chamber and talk about the scale and urgency of the crisis and get attacked for it, that is an attack on every public school teacher in this country, because I come into the chamber representing public school teachers, parents, carers and the students in our public schools. Just today I got a message from a parent that said: 'We just got our book list. Two kids in state primary school. $33 for Blu Tack.' She says, 'We literally can't do Blu Tack, let alone the paper, the tissues, the whiteboard pens!' She says, 'Fund our public schools.' Parents don't have a choice anymore. They either have to accept that their public school is underfunded and pay between $1,500 and $2,000 to make up the shortfall themselves, or they have to fork out of their pockets to attend the private school that's fully resourced and for which fees have gone up 50 to 80 per cent. Another parent said, 'Why do I have to budget for my kid to be in a public school?' We are in a cost-of-living crisis and parents need our help. We can't wait until 2025; we can't wait until 2028. Our public schools are in crisis. Teachers are leaving in droves. It is time to fully fund our public schools and do it now. Question agreed to. Defence Industry 36 15:31 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today relating to Australian defence technology capabilities. The history of Aussie innovation is something every Australian can be proud of. The Aboriginal inventor David Unaipon is on the $50 note. Amongst many other things, he invented the centrifugal motor. Tasmanian brothers Edward and Don Both invented the humidicrib in the late 1930s. And in the 1950s, Dr David Warren invented the black box. And we punch above our weight in military innovation too, from drones to Hawkeis to Bushmasters to name a few. Australian defence technology capabilities are world leading. Just last night, during a defence industry event, I was reminded of the kind of innovation that is going on. I chatted to a Tassie company that is making camouflage webbing that holds a soldier's heat signature. These guys employ scores of Tasmanians, and they make great gear that is sought after overseas. I spoke to another company that had set up in the UK because it's easier to sell their product in Europe than it is to our own people, our own government here. Most of the businesses I spoke to last night said that Defence only wants to work with the primes. There's your problem: they're called 'the primes'. The primes are the multinationals, companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Basically, the primes are the big boys on the block. They're the headkickers, hogging all the contracts and getting all the cash. That's what they do. They decide who's going to get a contract and who's not. This is getting beyond ridiculous. Why isn't the Australian government giving our Aussie companies a seat at the table? How will we build our sovereign capability if we aren't investing in these innovative Aussie companies, Australian companies who employ and train Australians? And I thought this government wanted to make Australia make again. I have to be honest with you: these primes are becoming a problem. They have been building up. They're getting way too big and they're deciding who's going to get on the block and who's not. It's becoming jobs for mates with these guys. That is the truth of the matter. You need to get on to these primes before I put forward a motion to have them checked out, to get people in and to drag them down. There's a significant problem between who wants a contract and the primes. Question agreed to. NOTICES 36 NOTICES Presentation 36 15:33 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I give notice in general terms under standing order 76 of my intention to move a motion on the next day of sitting relating to the routine of business. Presentation 37 Postponement 38 COMMITTEES 38 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 38 15:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. CONDOLENCES 38 CONDOLENCES Hayden, Hon. William George (Bill), AC 38 15:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 21 October 2023 of the Hon. Bill Hayden AC, Governor-General from 1988 to 1996 and a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Oxley, Queensland, from 1961 to 1988. 15:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 21 October 2023, of the Honourable Bill Hayden AC, twenty-first Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, former cabinet minister in the Whitlam and Hawke governments, former leader of the Australian Labor Party and former Member for Oxley, places on the record its gratitude of his long and distinguished service to the Parliament of Australia and the nation, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Senators, I rise on behalf of the government to express our condolences following the passing of a great servant of the nation, the parliament and the Australian Labor Party—the Hon. William 'Bill' George Hayden, former Governor-General, cabinet minister, Labor leader and member of the House of Representatives—at the age of 90. As I begin, I convey our sympathies to his family—his widow, Dallas Hayden AM and his children, Georgina, Ingrid, Kirk and the late Michaela—as well as to his grandchildren, former colleagues and many friends. I welcome Mrs Hayden, Ms Georgina Hayden, Ms Ingrid Hayden and Captain Kirk Hayden to the Senate today. Few have given more in the service of our country than Bill Hayden, and even fewer have done so with his humility. In so many ways, Bill Hayden helped lay the foundation of what we have come to value about modern Australia. He introduced Australia's first universal health insurance scheme, Medibank, as social security minister under Whitlam. As foreign minister under Hawke, he was a strong advocate for our country, turning our attention to our own region, and for closer ties with the countries of the Asia-Pacific. He modernised our party, democratising and refocusing the Australian Labor Party while working to rebuild our credibility as a party of government, and he continued a life of service as the 21st Governor-General of Australia. He was central in reshaping Labor from its Whitlam identity to its modern character, not only as one of just four ministers to serve under both Prime Ministers Whitlam and Hawke, but, moreover, in how he turned Labor's focus, demonstrating competent economic management as the necessary precondition for implementing and, crucially, embedding bold social reform. Bill Hayden was, in his own words, a product of the Great Depression. One of five children, he was born to a working-class family in Brisbane and raised in Ipswich. His father, George Hayden, an Irish American merchant seaman who settled in Australia, married Violet Quinn in 1933. Raised in poverty, Bill attended Brisbane State High School until the age of 15, before leaving school in 1953 to join the Queensland police force, where he served for eight years. During this time, he studied economics and politics part time at the University of Queensland. He became increasingly active in Labor politics and, despite some more-radical political tendencies, eventually gained preselection to contest the federal seat of Oxley for Labor at the 1961 federal election, where he defeated the incumbent, Liberal minister Dr Donald Cameron. In his first speech to the House of Representatives, Bill Hayden spoke of the honour and privilege of serving the people of Oxley as a Labor member. He described the ALP as 'the only political party in Australia today which pursues policies designed for the greater good for the majority of the people'. For so many of us and for those who have the privilege of walking in the footsteps of giants like Bill Hayden, this articulation of who Labor is and who we are for is one that stands to this day. It was as Minister for Social Security in the Whitlam government that Bill Hayden made his greatest contribution to the lives of millions of Australians, through the introduction of universal health insurance in the form of Medibank. In introducing legislation to establish Medibank, Bill Hayden said: The first and main objective of Medibank is to give every Australian on identical terms automatic security against the cost of medical and hospital treatment, at reasonable cost to the community. It's a simple premise, a just premise, but one that faced forceful and prolonged opposition both in this place and beyond. Medibank was, of course, eroded and eventually abolished by the Fraser government, which I would say proved Bill Hayden's point about Labor being the only party that governs for the good of the majority of Australians. But Medibank had laid the foundation for our current system of universal health care, enshrined by the Hawke government as Medicare. Ultimately, it was that simple premise—that Australians should not go without health care because they can't afford it—that Bill was so proud to see firmly embedded in Australian government and, indeed, now, in the Australian psyche. As the Prime Minister has said: 'If Bill Hayden had left no other legacy than as the key architect of universal healthcare in this country, he would still stand as a legend of our movement and a great contributor to our nation.' As consequential as it was, the introduction of Medibank was not the only reform led by Bill Hayden during the Whitlam government that sought to build a fairer and more compassionate Australia. He also oversaw the introduction of the single mothers pension, provided to all single mothers to help them care for their children. It was provided at the same rate regardless of a woman's marital status, living arrangement or the time of the child's conception. Bill Hayden spoke of single mothers who would visit his electorate office in Ipswich, bereft of options to forge an independent life following a family breakdown. As a Queensland police officer, he understood all too well the way in which poverty limited women's choices, too often forcing them to remain in violent and abusive relationships. In introducing the bill to establish the payment, Bill Hayden described it as: … a clear demonstration of this government's determination to bring an end as quickly as it can to the discrimination that existed against women and, in this case, certain classes of women … Later expanded to include all single parents regardless of gender, the payment was a practical expression of Bill Hayden's and the Whitlam government's commitment to gender equality, to recognising women as equal citizens in Australian society, against whom no discriminatory treatment would be tolerated. In June 1975, Bill Hayden became Australia's 21st Treasurer and served in that position until the dismissal of the Whitlam government in November of that year. But his short tenure as Treasurer belied his enduring influence over future Labor governments. It was he who laid the groundwork for the Labor economic philosophy that was to come, one that would reject crude binaries between the heart and the head or between passion and pragmatism; a philosophy that would prioritise economic management not as an end in itself but as a means to a fairer and more just society. Bill Hayden succeeded Gough Whitlam as leader of the Labor Party in 1977 and would go on to hold that position until February 1983 when he was replaced as leader by Bob Hawke. Paul Keating said of Bill Hayden: The policy coherence that has given Australia its quarter century of uninterrupted growth, began its long coalescence the day Bill Hayden convened his first Shadow Cabinet meeting. Much has been made of Bill's famous quip that 'a drover's dog' could have led the Labor Party to victory at the 1983 election. Like all counterfactuals, we will never know if Labor would have defeated the Fraser government under a different leader, but what we do know for sure is that Bill Hayden's legacy as a Labor Leader endures. He was the youngest leader of the Labor Party since Chris Watson in 1901, and after our second consecutive landslide defeat in 1977 he set about rebuilding a party reeling from a long period of conflict and upheaval—from the trauma of the split through the elation of Whitlam's election, the anger at the dismissal and a pair of electoral disasters. As leader, Bill Hayden sought to make Labor a more viable party of government, and he did so by facing up to the difficult economic realities of the late seventies and early eighties; by beginning the hard work of positioning Labor as a reliable steward of the dramatic changes coursing through the Australian economy and the Australian society; and by working to overcome entrenched conflicts in Australian politics. He built more positive relationships with business, laying the foundation for the extensive cooperation to come under future Labor governments. Once a sceptic of ANZUS, he adopted policies that would strengthen the alliance while, at the same time, emphasising Australia's independence and unique place in our region. Under his leadership, our party adopted a quota of 30 per cent women in parliament over 10 years, a big step in our progress to, last year, becoming the first government comprised of a majority of women. Bill Hayden, of course, also served as foreign minister in the Hawke government from 1983 to his retirement from parliament in 1988. The great chronicler of Australian foreign affairs, Allan Gyngell, wrote of him: … he strongly believed that the nation's interests embraced not only political, economic and strategic concerns but issues of 'moral duty' such as human rights, world poverty, arms control and the resolution of conflict. Bill Hayden encouraged Australia to both embrace and expand our position in the region. He told parliament in 1983 that Australia should stake some of our national imagination on the development of broad perspectives regarding the future of South-East Asia. In that light, with Bill Hayden as foreign minister, Australia pursued an active diplomatic role as a facilitator in the long-running Cambodian conflict, promoting dialogue between the various parties as a first step to an eventual peace settlement. His successor as foreign minister, Gareth Evans, would characterise Bill Hayden's role in Cambodia as creating acceptance by the international community of Australia as a responsible and knowledgeable voice on the issue of the Cambodian settlement. Doing so provided an important foundation upon which Evans would build, culminating in Australia becoming one of 19 cosignatories to the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements, which led to the end of decades of civil war and laid the path for free and fair elections in Cambodia in 1993. And, importantly, it demonstrated to our region, to South-East Asia, that Australia was a reliable partner and a sincere partner. Bill Hayden might have surprised many when he accepted the role of Australia's 21st Governor-General in 1988, having previously expressed support for an Australian republic. He served for an extended term of seven years until 1995. Upon leaving the role, he was described as having performed it with an egalitarian dignity and a common touch. In concluding, I want to make note of Bill Hayden's advocacy for an issue on which he was outspoken long before almost any of his peers: gay rights. Way back in 1967, Bill Hayden advocated for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, pointing to such reforms in the United Kingdom. For context: this was seven years before my home state of South Australia would become the first state in Australia to decriminalise homosexuality. In 1988, Bill Hayden was so appalled by the alleged harassment of gay men by the Queensland police that he wrote to the state's Premier to express his disgust and to call for an end to the persecution of gays. He would go on to become an early advocate for marriage equality and for the adoption of children by same-sex couples, arguing that to deny these rights was a clear form of discrimination. On this issue, like so many others, Bill Hayden was a man well ahead of his time. He was a man led by a profound sense of compassion and of decency, and that is something we should all work to emulate. It is perhaps a curiosity of fate that Bill Hayden was so often to lay the foundation for successes that would fully come to fruition only after his departure from the stage. For some this might have stirred bitterness. It is a mark of his character that, upon being asked to reflect on his life in public service, he simply said: … I hope people can say he used his time in office fairly and helpfully for those who had a need for help, and he did it honestly and with integrity. May we all be so humble in our service. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party in the Senate and on behalf of the government as Leader of the Government in the Senate, I again express condolences following the passing of Bill Hayden AC. And to Dallas, Georgina, Ingrid and Kirk; his wider family; and those here and beyond who knew him well: our deepest sympathies. 15:49 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise on behalf of the opposition to associate ourselves with the remarks of Senator Wong as Leader of the Government in the Senate, to support the motion moved by the leader and to pay tribute to the life of the Hon. William George Hayden AC—or Bill Hayden, as he was known across Australia. From tributes given following his passing, what was certainly clear amongst all of them was that, in every public role he held, Bill Hayden was devoted to serving Australia. His life was one of intellectual journey. But, throughout his life, he was always one for commitment to values and particularly to putting the interests and the human interests of Australians first and foremost. Born in 1933 in South Brisbane to Violet Quinn and George Hayden, Bill Hayden had the upbringing that Ben Chifley spoke of as the 'lottery of life' or the 'shafts of fate' that so often lead to the shaping of a person's trajectory in their life. Facing hardship at home, Bill Hayden was awarded a scholarship, attending high school in Brisbane before joining the Queensland Police Force in 1953—a vocation, as Senator Wong touched on, that would contribute to Bill's policy ideas and inform his perspective in valuable ways. Simultaneously, he undertook an unusual path for a Queensland copper, of studying economics part time whilst working. It's reported that Bill Hayden, with a strong interest in policy and ideology, had some difficulty, initially, in finding a political home, reportedly being rejected firstly by the Communist Party at the time, because of his police background, but then initially by the Labor Party, because he was perceived to be too left wing. However, in 1957 his Labor membership was accepted, and, following his time as a police officer, at the young age of 28, Bill Hayden was elected to the Australian parliament as the member for Oxley in 1961. Oxley, at that stage, had been a relatively safe Liberal seat, and Bill Hayden's election to this parliament was achieved with a remarkable 11 per cent swing towards him to unseat the sitting Liberal member. He would go on, though, to represent the community of Oxley for some 27 years, retaining their support through 11 consecutive re-elections. Under the tumultuous years of the Whitlam government, Bill Hayden was appointed to serve firstly as Minister for Social Security and later as Treasurer. Bill Hayden's ability to establish Medibank—which would go on, in later iterations, to be known by all Australians as Medicare—would become a crucial part of his legacy in implementing a universal health insurance scheme. He went through great political battle to do so, with the 1974 double dissolution election being fought particularly over those reforms, but they were successfully implemented. It was also during this time that that experience as a Queensland police officer would see him increase welfare support and the social safety net for single mothers, with his own childhood and that influence in the Queensland police service giving him a true understanding of the importance of financial independence and how that could provide support to women experiencing hardship or abuse and help create their own independence. Bill Hayden was appointed as Treasurer to replace the somewhat ill-fated Jim Cairns. It was too little too late for the Whitlam government, even as Bill Hayden was acknowledged as valiantly trying to restore some budget integrity in his time as Treasurer. Following the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1974 and the repeat electoral thrashing of the Labor Party under Gough Whitlam again in 1977, it was perhaps the greatest kind of political challenge for Bill Hayden when he was appointed as leader of the Labor Party. He faced the test of restoring cohesion and policy credibility whilst reforming the Australian Labor Party in what is I think regarded pretty well universally across the major parties as the toughest job in Australian politics—that of Leader of the Opposition. In his five years as Labor leader, Bill Hayden steered Labor to a 4.2 per cent swing towards them at the 1980 election, and, whilst not enough to form government, it saw another 13 members elected to the House of Representatives for the Labor Party, in a parliament much smaller than it is today. Perhaps ominously for Bill Hayden, that election also heralded the entry to the House of Reps of Bob Hawke. Nonetheless, Bill Hayden continued to work on ensuring the Labor Party became evermore electorally viable. And it was his commitment to equality, which Senator Wong spoke of, and, indeed, great prescience, in being ahead of his time, that saw him oversee the reforms that enabled the ALP to commit to and to adopt a quota for women in the parliament of 30 per cent over 10 years. As the unpredictable and uncontrollable sliding-door moments of our lives occur, it was, of course, the day that Bill Hayden had been persuaded to stand aside as Leader of the Opposition that Malcolm Fraser would announce the 1983 general election. It was the election that would ultimately make way for Bob Hawke to become the next Prime Minister for the Labor Party and for Australia, and we can all only speculate on what that outcome would have been had Bill Hayden remained as Labor leader, with many believing, including Bill Hayden himself, that the steady guidance of his leadership is what paved the way for Bob Hawke to be able to achieve victory. Senator Wong acknowledged it was at that time that Bill Hayden famously said that a drover's dog could lead the Labor Party to victory. The phrase entered Australian political folklore—so much so, that Bill Hayden reportedly rued saying it in the first place. Following the 1983 election, Prime Minister Hawke appointed Bill Hayden as Minister for Foreign Affairs—later with the addition of the trade portfolio, where he remained, until his resignation from the parliament, serving Australia on the international stage. During his time as foreign minister, Bill Hayden completed what was no small feat of international diplomacy in that era, undertaking close to 40 official visits to almost 90 different countries. Taking particular interest in bilateral relations with nations across the Asia-Pacific, Bill Hayden quite rightly focused on developing closer ties for Australia with the region in which we live, recognising that it would be of growing importance to Australia in the decades to come. It was also under Bill Hayden that one of his greatest achievements was had, in playing the leading role, as acknowledged, in the development of a peace process in Cambodia, leading international thinking, well ahead of its time, towards the establishment of a UN transitional authority that would eventually come into force under his successor. It was not long after Bill Hayden resigned from parliament in 1988 that he was appointed Australia's 21st Governor-General and, in what was evidently his astuteness for every public role he held, Bill Hayden would remain in that role for a position of some seven years. His dedication to service as Governor-General was remembered by current Governor-General David Hurley, stating that he set an example of putting others before self, dedication and compassion. His interest in the lives of the Australian community is still remembered, and, three decades on, visitors to Government House recall his warmth. His was a life well lived that enriched our community. After his extended term as Governor-General, Bill Hayden remained engaged with the Labor Party, the politics of the day and the many different issues that he had developed interests in. He was always resolute in his beliefs but constructive in his approach. He was a giant of the Australian Labor Party and left a transformative and lasting impact upon Australia. It was in later life that Bill Hayden, reflecting upon his time as a parliamentarian and his work in public life, said: Well, I hope people can say he used his time in office fairly and helpfully for those who had a need for help, and he did it honestly and with integrity. You can't ask for more than that in public life. As we in the Australian Senate today reflect upon Bill Hayden's life, it is with much certainty that I can say—and I'm sure we can all concur—he achieved exactly that. We thank Bill Hayden for his exceptional dedication of lifelong service to Australia and pay our respects to his wife, Dallas, and their three surviving children, in Georgina, Ingrid and Kirk. Vale, Bill Hayden. Thank you for your contribution to Australia. 15:59 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens to associate myself with the remarks already made and to contribute to the condolence for the Hon. Bill Hayden AC. Political historian Paul Kelly described Bill Hayden as having a uniquely Queensland sense of style: … the man being projected as the alternative prime minister would just stroll into his Ipswich barber; Dallas— his wife— would buy his shirts at the local shops; Hayden would appear on television with his uniquely Queensland sense of colour contrast: open-necked blue, white and pale blue sports outfits. He served as social security minister from 1972 to 1975, introducing ambitious reforms, including the single parent pension, then known as the single mothers pension, and Medibank, Australia's first attempt at providing universal health care before its later abolition by the Fraser government. After the 1975 landslide election, Bill Hayden was left as the only Labor MP in Queensland. As someone who served as the only Greens MP from my state, also Queensland, up until very recently, I know well the challenges that must have come with that moment. He served as Leader of the Opposition from 1977 to 1983, and, while the Greens have not always agreed with the direction that the Labor Party took after Whitlam, he prepared Labor for a return to government under Bob Hawke. As foreign affairs minister in the Hawke government, he was a leader in reevaluating Australia's place in the world, including the pivot to Asia, promoting a Cambodian peace plan and subjecting the ANZUS Treaty to a lengthy review, something we are well overdue for again. According to Paul Keating, Bill Hayden believed that the country's interest should include a moral duty, embracing such things as human rights, world poverty, arms control and the resolution of conflict. He balanced competing interest in order to push us to a better world, and for that reason he is a giant of the Labor Party. In his final role in public life, Bill Hayden, despite being a republican, served with distinction is Governor-General from 1989 to 1995. He lived a life of politics, and, whether on universal health care, supporting single parents or Australia's role in the world, his legacy lives on. That mix of courage and humility is one that we should all seek to replicate. I acknowledge his family here in the gallery today. To his wife, Dallas, and to his surviving children, Georgina, Ingrid and Kirk, we pay our respects, and we acknowledge his remarkable life and a life of service. Vale, Bill Hayden. 16:02 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria On behalf of the National Party, I also rise to associate us with the commentary within the chamber today on the passing of the Hon. Bill Hayden AC, a distinguished figure whose contributions to our nation and public service have left an indelible mark on the Australian political landscape. I extend my and my colleagues' deepest condolences to his wife, Dallas; daughters, Ingrid and Georgie; son, Kirk, and their family. It's wonderful that they can join us today in the chamber to hear that, years after, their father and husband is celebrated by all sides of the chamber for the contributions he made. It's been wonderful to listen to Senator Waters's and other senators' contributions and to learn more about Mr Hayden and his time of service. He did serve the Australian people with unwavering dedication and commitment throughout what was a remarkable career. From the earliest opportunity he choose careers that were dedicated to serving his community. He served in the Navy, after unsuccessfully applying for the Air Force, aged just 18. He then went on to join the Queensland Police Force as a police officer. It's that life of service and commitment to community and to making everything he did make his state, his community and eventually his nation better for others that I think is a unique calling, shall I say, vocational approach, to politics. During his years of service, he spent most of his years in regional Queensland and eventually was stationed near Ipswich. Once, he was posted as the protection detail for the Queensland governor. At that time, I'm sure he'd never have believed that one day that young copper would end up being Australia's Governor-General with his own protection detail. He may later have regretted saying it, but I for one am very, very glad that Mr Hayden put into political folklore the term 'drover's dog', which has been such a partner of those of us who live out in the regions and our success in rural life. After a failed attempt to join the Communist Party, ironically due to his connection to law enforcement, he became a staunch member of the Labor Party, in 1953. After eight years in the force, at age 28 he was elected to represent the people of Oxley in the House of Representatives in 1961 and went on to serve for more than 27 years, retiring in 1988. As a parliamentarian he championed causes that aimed to improve the lives of ordinary citizens, particularly those facing economic hardship and social inequality. Mr Hayden's most notable accomplishments were in his role as leader of the Australian Labor Party from 1977 to 1983. During this period he advocated for policies that prioritised social justice and inclusivity. As a single mother of four, many decades later, I am very grateful that the single-parent payment was brought into life because it made the life of my children and me much easier, given the circumstances we found ourselves in. He recognised the importance of creating a fair and equitable society where every individual, regardless of their background and circumstances, had the opportunity to succeed. This commitment to inclusivity—I would argue this inclusivity was a result of his regional Queensland background—became a hallmark of his political career, earning him the respect and admiration of colleagues and constituents alike. He has been described as the best man never to have become Prime Minister. I reflect on an obituary written by Christopher Zinn in the Guardian: His party's decision to deny him a chance to become PM has been called a moral turning point in its history, a victory for a "whatever it takes to win" philosophy that cursed it with leadership turmoil in subsequent years. In his 1996 autobiography, Bill wrote of the leadership: 'It hurt like hell revisited several times.' All of us in this place, some more than others, know that despite our commitment to serve our nation we sometimes experience the very real sting of politics. However, he picked himself up, dusted himself off and went on to become Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. In the realm of foreign policy, his diplomatic efforts contributed significantly to Australia's standing on the global stage. His advocacy for international humanitarian causes, coupled with a commitment to fostering peaceful relations between nations, reflected a deep understanding of the interconnectedness of our world at a time when we were experiencing significant change here at home. His dedication to social justice, equality and human rights resonated not only with his own party but across the entire political spectrum. In 1989 Bill was appointed to the position of Australia's Governor-General, a role he executed with grace and dignity. As the Queen's representative in Australia, he carried out his duty with a sense of responsibility that earnt him the respect and admiration of his fellow citizens. Some quotes from 1977 from this man, regarding his views about the position of Governor-General were that he didn't believe we needed such a position: 'The Americans get along very nicely without a Governor-General. They don't have a Governor-General overriding representatives of the people elected by the people and answerable to the people.' He went on to say, 'Of course we need people skilled and experienced in the duties of Governor-General—cutting ribbons, opening fetes and attending baby shows.' Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it was with this humility that he took on the role. It has been remarked since his passing that he was a popular and distinctive Governor-General with a genuine common touch, which I think speaks to the role's necessity. His ceremonial role was carried out with a sense of duty that transcended political affiliations. During his term he brought a unique blend of statesmanship and approachability to the position of Governor-General, earning him the admiration of those he encountered. As we reflect on Mr Hayden's legacy, let us remember his enduring commitment to public service, his passion for social justice and his unwavering dedication to the wellbeing of the Australian people. His impact on our nation will be felt for generations to come, and his memory will be forever etched in the annals of Australian history. In these moments of grief, may the family and friends of Bill Hayden find solace in the knowledge that his contributions have left a legacy and that his spirit will continue to inspire those who follow in his footsteps. We in the Australian Senate join the nation in mourning the loss of a statesman, leader and advocate for the people, and our prayers are with his family during this difficult time. 16:09 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to speak with heartfelt and sincere condolences on the passing of Bill Hayden. I note that his family is in the gallery today, which is very hard. I had the privilege of attending the state funeral for this giant of Australian politics, the Hon. Bill Hayden AC. Bill Hayden was at various times the Treasurer of Australia, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and, of course, one of the country's longest serving governors-general. He was a senior figure of the Australian Labor Party at the time of one of its great triumphs, the 1972 election of the Whitlam government, and at the time of one of its worst disasters, the dismissal. He duly won the leadership of the ALP after the 1977 election and, in 1980, recovered much of the furniture Labor had lost. He came within a whisker of leading Labor to the 1983 election. That moment in 1983 defined Bill Hayden's great character and the example he set for many future political leaders of Australia. He resigned his leadership for the good of his party, clearing the way for Bob Hawke and Paul Keating to lead Labor to the party's longest period in government. We politicians are an ambitious lot, but Bill Hayden sacrificed his ambition for what he believed was for the good of his country. I remember being disappointed at the change in Labor's leadership. I was very young at the time, but I saw snippets of it on TV. I thought, 'I like that man,' and I was looking forward to him being the Prime Minister of Australia. We'll never know what sort of Prime Minister he might have been, but I think Bill could have been a very good one. Both Bob Hawke and Paul Keating owe their prime ministerships to Bill Hayden—Hawke because he stepped aside and Keating because Hayden made him shadow Treasurer, a position he continued under Hawke. Keating returned that favour when he advocated a second term for Bill Hayden as Governor-General. My connection with Bill Hayden is that he was also the member for Oxley, serving in the electorate for almost 27 years, the very same seat that I won as an Independent in 1996, approximately eight years after Bill Hayden vacated the seat in 1988. Twenty-seven years was quite a bit longer than my time in the position, which began only a month or so after he resigned as Australia's Governor-General. I will always be proudly grateful that, early in my term, Bill took the time to come and meet with me in the electorate office. It was a great honour. He loved Ipswich, where he served as a police officer and where he established his first family home with his lovely wife, Dallas. He knew it so well. Bill spoke to me about the issues which brought me into the national spotlight. Just reflect on that, when my staff told me that Bill Hayden was coming to meet me in my office, I was shocked, surprised and grateful. I always saw him as a man I looked up to and respected. He was also a man who loved Ipswich. When I heard that he won the seat because he doorknocked every house, I knew he had been determined to win and had something to offer the parliament. He wasn't a career politician; he was a man who had a mission to represent the people of Australia. As I said, he stepped aside for Bob Hawke. He could have been the Prime Minister of this country. We'll never know. But that tells you the calibre of the man. We spoke on issues. I especially remember when I raised multiculturalism and immigration and, actually, he agreed with me. He said, 'We are all Australians.' He didn't believe in the division it was causing. When I reflect on that time, it was an honour and a privilege to be at his funeral. On either side of me were two of his former ministers and another behind me who all worked with him when he was leader of the Labor Party, so I was surrounded, in some ways, by the Indians, I suppose, but it was good to have a good conversation with them about the respect that they had for this man. I have to say, being there, I was very impressed with Paul Keating and the comments he made on that day at the funeral. He showed humility, gratitude, appreciation for Bill Hayden. I learnt a lot. I appreciate the man a lot more for what he has done and achieved for the people of Australia and this parliament, so I'm very pleased to be able to say these few words today and remember this man that we all should look up to for what he achieved and contributed to this parliament and to Australia. 16:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I too associate myself with the remarks of the Senator Wong, Senator Birmingham and others who have made contributions about Bill Hayden as well. I wasn't going to list Bill Hayden's achievements as others have done but I do believe that no federal Labor figure out of Queensland has a more significant record of achievement in the federal parliament than Mr Hayden, so it is a phenomenal record of success. I want to focus on two aspects of Mr Hayden's contribution to public life that are more specific to Queensland and Queensland Labor. The first goes back to 1975 after the defeat of the Whitlam government, when Bill Hayden was the only federal Labor MP left standing in Queensland. He had an enormous burden placed on his shoulders following that election loss from Whitlam. Inside the party, we often romanticise the Whitlam government but it was an emphatic rejection, unfortunately, by the Australian people. At the Queensland state election the year before, Queensland Labor had been reduced to what was infamously called the 'cricket team' of 11 seats. If you think about the status of Queensland Labor in the mid-seventies, we were in a terrible state of decay and it really was Bill Hayden, as leader and most significant Labor person in Queensland, who was responsible for rebuilding the party in that state. What it eventually led to, particularly post Bill Hayden becoming opposition leader in 1977, was federal intervention in the Queensland branch and the modernisation of the Queensland Labor Party. Ironically, the first beneficiary of that was Bob Hawke and, as many people have mentioned, Mr Hayden stood aside just before that election was called in 1983. But the reality is, at that election in 1983 in Queensland, we went from five seats to 10 and we won 10 of 19 seats. So federal Labor won more than 50 per cent of the seats in Queensland. We haven't been able to replicate that since and, I have no doubt, it wouldn't have been achieved if it wasn't for the hard work of Bill Hayden reforming the Queensland branch and making it electable. He obviously did this across the country federally but it was a particularly relevant in Queensland because we had been out of power at the state level for so long. I have no doubt if it wasn't for the work of Mr Hayden that we wouldn't have had the Wayne Goss premiership six years later in 1989 as well, which led to what has effectively been 30 of the last 34 years in Queensland of a state Labor government thanks to those reforms. The legacy of Bill Hayden towards Queensland Labor's modern success is significant. I wanted to make sure it was put on the record, and it should not be forgotten. The second aspect I wanted to talk about was when Bill Hayden re-joined the Labor party in 2005 after having a period out of when serving as Governor-General. He regularly attended branch meetings—and as a current senator I can't say I'm a regular attendee at branch meetings these days—in the North Ipswich and Somerset branches, and I think it's admirable to continue to make a contribution after all he had achieved in his long period in public life, that he was someone who was so committed to the party that he wanted to continue to make a contribution. It wasn't long after he re-joined that I became state secretary and got to know Bill Hayden. One aspect of his that became very clear to me was how astute he was. In Bill Hayden's funeral booklet, there are some words of remembrance from Barry Jones: that he had a copper's instinct. I hadn't thought of that, but it made sense to me with some of my interactions with Bill Hayden, how astute he was at summing up people and identifying problems. I was able to benefit from that copper's instinct. A couple of instances come to mind where I was able to use that instinct. In 2014 we were facing a by-election in the seat of Griffith following the election loss in 2013. Kevin Rudd retired, and we had a really tough by-election on our hands at the time. At the same time, there was a by-election in the seat of Redcliffe. We had gone down to seven seats, and if we won Redcliffe it would have got us to eight seats, and we were really determined to win Griffith at the same time. I was state secretary, really busy with two by-elections, when a call came through to my office saying, 'Mr Hayden wants to talk to me.' I was really busy with the by-election, but of course I took the call from someone who is a custodian of the party. I had a chat with Bill Hayden where he provided an insight to me, through a relative of his who was in a nursing home in Griffith, about what elderly residents were thinking, particularly ones who had lived in Griffith for a long time and had a real affinity to the previous member, Kevin Rudd. He persuaded me that we needed to do something about that, so we sent a letter to everyone over a certain age who had lived in Griffith and was a long-term resident in that area. I'm confident that this had a significant impact on the result, because we won that by-election by only a couple of hundred votes. Being able to see how his mind operated and how astute he was, I could get a sense of why he was so successful in his political career. Another instance occurred in the lead-up to the 2015 state election in Queensland, where we had been reduced to the seven seats, as I said before. I got a phone call from Bill Hayden and I took the call. We were trying to reclaim a lot of seats we had lost in Ipswich, which was traditional Labor Party heartland. Bill's insight and his passion for Ipswich and knowledge stayed with him throughout his whole life. He was able to provide some insights into what was happening on the ground and some character traits of our candidates that were probably less than desired. But he was so well plugged in and so astute that he was able to provide things to me that proved true at the time and only proved truer, as history has borne out. I get a sense of what he would have been like throughout his whole career and why he was able to make such a significant contribution. I certainly know that I have benefited from his astuteness, his wisdom and his experience, and there would be so many others not only within the party but also within broader communities across Australia who would have benefited as well. As I said at the start, Bill Hayden has made as significant a contribution as anyone from Queensland Labor has made to federal parliament. It is a remarkable record: a phenomenal list of achievements as minister, a proud record as opposition leader, and a lasting record of reform for Queensland Labor. I feel fortunate to have benefited from Mr Hayden's wisdom and experience. I was also able to gain an insight from that into his love and pride for his family. My thoughts and prayers are with Dallas, Georgina, Ingrid and Kirk, and I wish them all the best. Vale, Bill Hayden. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. COMMITTEES 46 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 46 Reference 46 16:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move general business notices of motion No. 1 and No. 2 together, and I table statements in relation to the works: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1 That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: RAAF Base Learmonth Redevelopment Enabling KC-30A Operations, Exmouth, Western Australia. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2 That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Canberra Defence Precinct Tranche 1 Australian Defence Force Academy Living-in Accommodation Project. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 46 DOCUMENTS Attorney-General's Department 46 Order for the Production of Documents 46 16:26 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia At the request of Senator Chandler, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on 30 November 2023: (a) the Statement of Reasons document held by the Attorney-General's Department relating to a terrorist organisation listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps prepared in January 2023; and (b) the 'Nomination Form—Criminal Code' held by the Attorney-General's Department relating to a terrorist organisation listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps prepared in January 2023. Question agreed to. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 46 Order for the Production of Documents 46 16:26 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia At the request of Senator McKenzie, 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 at the conclusion of question time on Wednesday, 29 November 2023, the final report of the Independent strategic review of the Infrastructure Investment Program, August 2023 (independent strategic review), as well as copies of: (a) the list of infrastructure projects which are not yet under construction that are recommended to proceed under recommendation 1A of the independent strategic review; (b) the list of 56 infrastructure projects which are not yet under construction that are recommended to proceed, noting the review had identified risks to be satisfactorily addressed prior to delivery, under recommendation 1B of the independent strategic review; (c) the list of 36 infrastructure projects which are not yet under construction that are recommended to complete planning, detailed costings, rescoping and for which the allocated delivery funding is recommended to be used to create headroom in the Infrastructure Investment Program under recommendation 1C of the independent strategic review; and (d) the list of 82 infrastructure projects which are not yet under construction and are recommended to be ceased under recommendation 1D of the independent strategic review. Question agreed to. Department of the Treasury 47 Order for the Production of Documents 47 16:27 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) Freedom of Information request no. 3379 (the request) sought briefing documents within the Financial System Division of the Department of the Treasury regarding the proposed Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) and Dixon Advisory and Superannuation Services Pty Ltd, in addition to correspondence from outside the Treasury about the eligibility of Dixon Advisory claimants under the proposed CSLR, since 21 May 2022, (ii) certain documents were not released, or were heavily redacted, under subsections 47G(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, in response to the request on the basis that the documents contain information about AFCA's business and financial affairs and that the release of such information could reasonably be expected to adversely and unreasonably affect AFCA's business, commercial or financial affairs, (iii) the fact that documents contain information about an organisation's business and financial affairs, and whether disclosure of such documents would affect that organisation's business and financial interests, is not a sufficient public interest immunity ground to withhold the documents from the Senate, and (iv) AFCA's status as the external dispute resolution (EDR) scheme that deals with financial services complaints, authorised by the responsible minister to operate the EDR scheme in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001, warrants a heightened degree of transparency, which outweighs concerns about commercial confidentiality; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 30 November 2023: (i) 'CSLR Questions and Answers' (document no. 1) referred in the Treasury's response to Freedom of Information request no. 3379, without the redactions referred to in paragraph (a)(ii), and (ii) 'CSLR—data' (document no. 4) and 'CSLR—data and design' (document no. 5) referred in the Treasury's response to Freedom of Information request no. 3379, that was not released in response to the request, due to the operation of subsection 47G(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 47 COMMITTEES Dental Services in Australia Select Committee 47 Reporting Date 47 16:28 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At the request of Senator Steele-John, I move: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee into the Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia be extended to 30 November 2023. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 47 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 47 Order for the Production of Documents 47 16:28 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 5 pm on 8 December 2023: (a) any correspondence between the Minister for the Environment and Water (the Minister) and the Threatened Species Scientific Committee regarding the Swift Parrot Recovery Plan (the recovery plan) in the past five years; (b) all minutes, file notes, briefing notes and documents between the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Threatened Species Scientific Committee regarding the recovery plan in the past five years; (c) any correspondence between the Minister and the New South Wales Government regarding the recovery plan in the past five years; (d) any correspondence between the Minister and the Victorian Government regarding the recovery plan in the past five years; and (e) any correspondence between the Minister and the Tasmanian Government regarding the recovery plan in the past five years. Question agreed to. Department of Home Affairs 48 Order for the Production of Documents 48 16:29 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia At the request of Senator Paterson, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than midday on Thursday, 30 November 2023, a copy of the advice provided to the Minister for Home Affairs by the Department of Home Affairs, relating to the Australian Government's prospects of success in the High Court case, NYZQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, as referred to by the Minister in an interview on Sky News Australia on Sunday, 19 November 2023. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 408 standing in the name of Senator Paterson and moved by Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 MATTERS OF URGENCY 49 MATTERS OF URGENCY Immigration Detention 49 16:37 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Paterson has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today. It is shown at item 13 on today's Order of Business. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock— Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Order! Senators, if you're not involved can you take it outside, please, or lower it to a dull roar? The clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:38 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Albanese Government's multiple failures to protect Australia and keep Australians safe, including their abandonment of Operation Sovereign Borders, failure to prevent an unauthorised maritime arrival reaching Australia's coastline, failure to pre-emptively respond to the High Court's decision on indefinite detention, and inability to combat growing antisemitism and violence in our community. Well, when I submitted this matter of public urgency— Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senators, I've already asked that, if senators aren't involved, they please take it outside. That's twice. Senator PATERSON 144138 When I submitted this matter of public urgency, I did not realise just how timely it would be, because, a little bit more than two hours ago, the High Court blew a hole in the Albanese government's final excuse for their inaction to protect the Australian community. Three weeks ago, when the High Court first ordered that the applicant in the case, NZYQ, needed to be released into the community because he was being indefinitely detained, I called on the Albanese government to introduce a preventive or continuing detention order regime. I said they could pick up what was in the high-risk terrorist offenders regime. I said they could adapt it and apply it to the highest-risk offenders in this cohort of, now, 141 people who've been released into the community. The Albanese Government first said we couldn't act at all—'And, anyway, don't worry; we're only releasing one person.' Well, 140 people later, they have acted, but only partially and only under pressure from the opposition. What they did not do, and what they should have done—and what we now know they could have done from 9 November—was to have introduced a preventive detention regime to protect the community, because the High Court has given a green light to the proposal that the coalition has been talking about now for three weeks. They said in their judgement, at paragraph 72, in relation to their order to release the plaintiff: Nor would grant of that relief prevent detention of the plaintiff on some other applicable statutory basis, such as under a law providing for preventive detention of a child sex offender who presents an unacceptable risk of reoffending if released from custody. This is exactly what we called on the Albanese government to do, and this is exactly what they said they could not do until they had the benefit of the High Court reasons. We now know they could have done that. We now know that these people did not need to be released into the community, that they in fact could have been redetained in custody on the application of the government to a court. The community could have been protected from that danger and fear which have been instilled in them when child sex offenders, rapists, murderers, contract killers and others have been released into the community. The good news is that it's not too late. The government can now finally act, because it need not wait any longer. I presume that the government already has drafted legislation ready to go. I assume they won't make the same mistake they did three weeks ago in not being ready, and I hope this legislation can be introduced into the House of Representatives tomorrow morning. I am certain that the coalition would provide bipartisan support for the swift passage of a preventive detention regime. I think we could get it done this week; I think it could pass the House, the Senate and receive royal assent before the weekend. The government could begin bringing actions in the court immediately to take at least the highest-risk offenders in this cohort off the streets immediately so that they no longer pose a danger to the community. This is a very important test for the Albanese government. We know they got it very badly wrong three weeks ago and we know that the home affairs minister and the immigration minister weren't ready. They have been contradicting each other in the media for weeks as to why they weren't ready, but we know they weren't ready. I really hope they don't make that same mistake again—I hope they're ready to act, because the community deserves protection. It is not good enough to simply put an electronic-monitoring bracelet and a curfew on some of these offenders but otherwise allow them out into the community. These are people who were in immigration detention for a good reason and they'd had their visas cancelled for a good reason. They had their visas cancelled because they broke the law or violated the character provisions of the Migration Act, and they had no lawful visa to be in this country. The only reason they weren't deported is because the crimes they committed were so heinous that no country in the world would take them. That's exactly the definition of someone who shouldn't be free to move about our community, and this is the test for the Albanese government now. I hope, for the sake of the Australian community, that they don't fail this test again. I hope that tomorrow they're ready and able to introduce this legislation to act to protect the community. If they are, I am sure we will be able to facilitate the passage of this legislation on a bipartisan basis. It would be untenable for the parliament to rise before the end of the year and, over summer, expose the community to the risk that one of those serious offenders commits another crime against another Australian and we weren't ready to protect them. 16:43 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to speak on this motion. What is becoming increasingly clear in this chamber, and in the other place, is that there is no issue too big or too small for Mr Dutton and his opposition to politicise. If you read out the words of this motion before us, it reads like a shopping list of things the opposition has sought to politicise: conflict in the Middle East and border security. These are pretty transparent attempts to seek political advantage using the same old playbook of Liberal parties past. We can all remember the impact of the politicisation of these issues by previous governments. Indeed, I reckon some people in this place were probably motivated to run for parliament because of the impact of the politicisation of some of these issues under previous governments—and under the Howard government. We can all remember the impact of those on our national cohesion and the impact of those decisions on the sense of safety and security that members of our community felt. Just as it was true then, it is true now: talking tough on national security doesn't actually make our nation more secure. Stoking fear and division does not make us stronger—in fact, it can make us weaker. Hacking at the seams of social cohesion is a dangerous business because the way we talk about national security matters and the way we talk about national security can determine our nation's security. That's a sentiment that not just I hold. I am sure that is a sentiment that would be backed in by national security experts and backed in by those working in this space every day. We have a choice in how we talk about these matters. We have a clear choice about where we draw the line between policy debate and politicisation. The first should absolutely be rigorous, but there needs to be caution in the use of the other. Of course it is not just how we talk about things; it's what we say—it's adherence to facts. Facts matter too. I implore all in this place and the other place if they're not going to strip the fearmongering from their rhetoric to at least make sure that their rhetoric is based and underlined in truth, because we have seen examples of jumping the gun in the press and elsewhere and weighing in on events without having the facts. The opposition leader is attempting to steer our country down a path using a playbook that we have seen before. He's doing so without any degree of self-reflection on his own legacy: a legacy characterised by a broken migration system—they're not my words; they're the words of the independent comprehensive review—a legacy that talked tough on borders whilst cutting compliance officers at the same time and, indeed, what we're dealing with now in this chamber and the other chamber. The opposition leader isn't prepared to engage in this legacy. Indeed, all he wants to do is play politics on the issues he can grab. If he's not saying no to everything and not opposing everything we as a government put up, he's seeking a political advantage, no matter the cost. There's division, fear and inflaming tensions when what our country needs is clear and calm leadership. These are political plays we have seen before. It is the playbook from the Liberal Party's past. Our government is working hard every day to make Australians more secure. We welcome a rigorous policy debate on these issues. They're important and they matter to the security of Australians, but the rigour in that policy debate must actually be accompanied by caution in the political discourse that surrounds it because how we talk about these issues matters and how we talk about our national security has the potential to impact and determine our national security. It does so through its impact on social cohesion and it does so through its impact on communities within Australia, especially communities at the moment who are feeling a lot of hurt and a lot of pain. I am sure some are feeling that the political discourse is not doing anything to improve our social cohesion. If we don't have social cohesion, we don't have a secure nation. How we talk about it matters. 16:48 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania It's very timely that the High Court has this afternoon released its reasons for its recent judgement that rendered indefinite immigration detention unlawful in Australia. It is a very timely release of reasons. It is critical that the entirety of this parliament and the entirety of the Australian media use the opportunity presented to them by the High Court today to take a deep breath, to calm down, to take a beat and to soberly reflect on what the High Court has published. The parliament as a whole needs to stop panicking, it needs to reflect on these High Court reasons in detail and it needs to reject the base politics of fear and division. Opposition leader Peter Dutton needs to stop confecting an emergency and a crisis, and the Labor Party needs to end its panicked and xenophobic response to Mr Dutton's confected emergency. Labor needs to stop letting Mr Dutton back-seat drive its legislative agenda. Since the original High Court judgement, we have had two attempts at legislating by the Labor Party, one that was heavily amended before it shamefully passed through this parliament a week and a half ago. Another one is caught in limbo between the House and the Senate because the government is completely paralysed in fear of Mr Dutton. We have had about half a dozen different positions from the Liberals. This is no way to legislate. It is no way to run a parliament, and it is refugees who are paying the price. Parliament needs to calmly consider the ramifications of this decision. Parliament needs to stop trying to undermine the High Court, stop trying to work its way around the High Court decision and this parliament needs to start respecting the rule of law. To Senator Paterson—the mover of this motion, the self-styled classical liberal—I must have missed the bit in John Stuart Mills's body of work that calls for arbitrary indefinite detention. I wonder if the words 'on liberty' mean anything to Senator Paterson and his colleagues—that, of course, being the title of one of Mills's best known— (Time expired) 16:51 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I am pleased to speak on this incredibly important urgency motion moved by my friend and colleague Senator Paterson. The government's first role and core duty is to keep Australians safe, yet this Albanese government has been timid, reactive and wrongheaded on almost every national security and public safety issue that has emerged in recent months. We have seen the failure to properly enforce Operation Sovereign Borders. We have seen the failure to prevent unauthorised maritime arrivals. Australians don't need any reminder about how dangerous those arrivals are, especially those people who are fooled by people smugglers into getting into those vessels. The government is still yet to explain how that recent arrival went undetected before reaching the Australian coastline. We have seen the horrendous failures of the government enabling dangerous criminals to be released into the community without adequate safeguards. First, they said all possible measures had been taken. Then it quickly turned out that wasn't true. They then said it was impossible to bring in legislation to fix the issue, but that wasn't true either. Perhaps the most dangerous and damaging failure was the Prime Minister and this government failing to recognise the urgency of responding emphatically and unequivocally to the clear evidence of antisemitism that is sadly festering in the hearts of our community in recent weeks. Just one day after the horrific 7 October terrorist attacks we saw the disgraceful scenes of a mob chanting 'death to the Jews' outside the Sydney Opera House. The Albanese government should have realised we had a dangerous situation on our hands and there should have been a national security committee of cabinet called for the next day. The Prime Minister should have made clear to his Labor colleagues that there was not to be any 'both sides' rhetoric or equivocation but, instead, we have seen them try and play internal politics by appealing to their radical left base. We have seen that for a long time now with the Labor Party's changing policy on Israel, changes welcomed by none other than Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. We know for a fact that, alongside Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the major purveyors of antisemitism in the world is the Islamic Republic of Iran, yet this government refused to accept and implement nine of the 12 recommendations made by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee to hold that regime to account. It has refused to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, even though they have been urged to do so not only by the Senate committee but also by the Biden administration and the Australian Iranian community, who know how dangerous the IRGC is not just in Iran but here in Australia as well. This is one of the world's most dangerous terrorist organisations. It is also proficient in cyberattacks, assassinations, hostage-taking and foreign interference, yet the government refuses to take action to list it as a terrorist organisation. Meanwhile, we have the Islamic republic embassy here in Australia spreading antisemitic propaganda and meeting with Australian universities. This Prime Minister and this Labor government are failing over and over again to show leadership and take decisive action to protect Australians. They always have an excuse for failing to act. When we point out these failures they say that we're just politicising issues, but they are failures to act. They invent an excuse, as the Prime Minister did when he claimed that he doesn't talk about topics he raises with the Chinese President; when he claimed that he doesn't talk about when National Security Committee meetings are held, even though he often does; when the government say they can't legislate to protect public safety, even when it turns out they can; or when the government said they were advised they were going to win a court case it turns out they expected to lose. The Albanese government is failing to do what is necessary to keep Australians safe, and every day, more evidence of that is emerging. No more excuses, it is time for action. 16:56 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I am genuinely appalled by this motion about national security that Senator Paterson has brought to the chamber, particularly by the last line of the motion, which accuses the government of not acting in some way on antisemitism. That is an absolute disgrace, Senator Paterson. We are all better than that in here. This motion links every issue on which the opposition thinks it can promote fear and division and combines it in one hot mess of emotion. That is what is in front of the chamber right now. We came together as a chamber to move a bipartisan motion unequivocally condemning the events of 7 October. We condemned antisemitism together. We did that together. We came together in this place as we should, as leaders, because we all have the responsibility to lead here. This motion and its accusation are a disgrace. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer in his comments rejecting and condemning antisemitism. He said in this parliament that antisemitism is beyond offensive. He said it is a betrayal of our Australian values. This is a time to be bringing people together, not playing the politics of fear and division. We know that words matter, Senator Paterson. That is the view, advice and warning of the Director-General of Security. He said after the terrible events of 7 October: … it is important that all parties consider the implications for social cohesion when making public statements He said words matter. It is the responsibility of all of us here to lead in these challenging times. It is the responsibility of all of us to check our words. It is the responsibility of all of us to check our facts, too, because facts matter right now, more than ever. Senator Paterson might wish to be reminded of that, given some of his recent commentary. Last week Senator Paterson rushed to call an incident on the US-Canadian border a terrorist attack. Only two hours later, the New York Governor confirmed there was no indication of terrorist involvement. Facts, not fear, are what we need in this place. They are what we need when we're talking about the Israel-Gaza conflict. They are what we need when we're talking about national security. They are what we need when we're talking about border security. A fact about the opposition's approach to border security is that Mr Dutton as the Minister for Home Affairs talked tough on borders and then slashed funding for compliance staff. He cut compliance officers by 50 per cent—that is a fact. Then Senator Paterson comes to this chamber with an assertion that we have abandoned Operation Sovereign Borders. That is an outrageous attempt at fear over fact. We have, in fact, just yesterday, announced an increase in funding for the Australian Border Force—funding that will increase compliance staff and give additional funding to the AFP. Facts matter—they matter—and the opposition has a responsibility here. But, in this motion, in linking every issue that you think will instil fear into Australians into one hot mess of emotion, you are seeking to promote division. You are seeking to instil fear in the way you are talking to the Australian community. You are fanning the flames of division in this country. Let's talk about how we protect Australians and keep Australians safe. Let's talk about facts, not fear. To keep our country safe, we need to be respected. Our leaders need to be respected. And the opposition is not demonstrating that kind of respect, as the alternative government of this country. So, while you get angry, we will get things done. While you focus on fear, we will focus on the facts. And, while you stoke division, we'll do the harder work of keeping Australians together. (Time expired) 17:01 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to speak on Senator Paterson's matter of urgency. This government is dropping the ball on national security, and the government's most important job is to keep us Australians safe, but, because the High Court deemed indefinite detention to be illegal, we now have criminals out in the Australian community. Worse, we have been hearing reports today that the government doesn't know where all of them are. Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about innocent asylum seekers; I'm talking about detainees who are convicted criminals. In 2019, I agreed to vote with the Morrison government to repeal the medevac bill. At the time, I was accused by refugee advocates and the media of doing a dirty deal. But I didn't get anything for Tasmania for my vote. The deal was simply this: that the Morrison government would get all of the remaining asylum seekers off Manus and Nauru in two years. At the time, I was told that there were about 80 people who couldn't be returned to their own countries because they were deemed a safety risk. At estimates, I asked the department what had happened to those 80 people deemed a safety risk. I was told they didn't know, but I had heard from a very good source that these people had been quietly taken from Nauru to Australia in the last six months. So, when the news broke two weeks ago that the High Court had ruled that indefinite detention was illegal, my first thought was: 'What about the last detainees that no other country would take?' In the last sitting, I asked the minister if the government knew where these people were, and again I didn't get an answer. The government claimed to be shocked by the High Court's decision to overturn indefinite detention, but legal observers have since told the media that they did expect the High Court to rule the way they did. The minister's next move was to throw her department under the bus, telling the media that it was public servants who told her that the Commonwealth would be successful. On 13 November, immigration minister Giles insisted that the government had oversight of the detainees because they were on strict visas. Then the ABC revealed that some of the detainees had been released without a visa. And now there is one on the run, and we have no idea where they are—let alone the other 80. I'm still waiting for an answer from the government as to where those 80 most-at-risk people are that were left on Nauru, that you've flown in, under the cover of darkness, at night, in the last six months. Where are they? (Time expired) 17:03 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I, too, rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I notice that Senator Paterson referred to 'the Albanese government's multiple failures to protect Australia and keep Australians safe, including their abandonment of Operation Sovereign Borders,' et cetera. He has discussed Sovereign Borders. I want to come to the core element of keeping Australians safe, which is defence. Those opposite have talked a lot about facts and have cast aspersions that the coalition is merely playing politics and seeking to raise fear, but I have quoted, previously, independent commentators who are expert in their field, and I've referred before to Mr Greg Sheridan, who is undoubtedly one of Australia's pre-eminent foreign affairs and defence journalists, who is also critical of the Albanese government in terms of national security. Now, to be fair, he's also been critical of my side of politics in the past, and I've acknowledged that before. But, as to the point that Senator Paterson raises, it's worth looking at and quoting from a recent article by Mr Sheridan, where he says: The Albanese government is coming apart in foreign policy, national security and defence. It has become incoherent and indecipherable. It consistently tries to hide basic information, can't maintain cabinet unity or policy consistency, its ministers frequently contradict each other and often seem to have no idea what they're talking about. What that says is that in this most fundamental thing, national security, all the promises that were made before the last election are not actually being carried through by action. In fact, Mr Sheridantalks about that, saying: The government started off well on … security issues generally and defence. Albanese made strong, substantial speeches in opposition. But now it looks as though those were purely designed to neutralise national security as an election issue. The government speaks a big game, and the Defence Strategic Review is one of those. It was all about meeting the urgent requirements, and yet what's happened? Twelve months before the Defence Strategic Review was released, there has been a range of cost shifting within Defence, and the budget that has followed has seen a $1.5 billion decrease in Defence funding. And this is not just criticism coming from the opposition. People like Mr Brent Clark, who heads up the Australian Industry & Defence Network, has said that the DSR has come out, which was the review, and 'now there is also to be a further review' with 'wasted time'. The government have taken a year to tell us that they are going to do another review, and this has significant implications for defence industry. As Mr Clark said: In other words, industry sat idle for 12 months. The government speaks a big game but then doesn't follow through with meaningful actions that would actually deliver outcomes on the ground. Even this week we tabled a report in this place about an inquiry that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee had done into the proposal for a defence capability assurance bill, which I have lodged in the Senate. All of the evidence provided by experts—some of whom work within Defence, many of whom work within defence industry, some of whom work in academia across large industry, small and medium sized companies; they have deep expertise and draw on ANAO reports and others, so they're completely independent of the coalition—were critical of the approach to assessing risk, yet what have the government done? They've said: 'We're not going to actually accept the change that's required. We'll stick with the internal reform that Defence is promising they can achieve, even though the evidence highlighted that Defence has failed to make that reform and consistently drive better outcomes over the last 20 years, even after three quite significant reports.' To the concern around antisemitism within the community, yes, the coalition has been critical of some of the actions of the government, but that's not us purely seeking to politicise the event. It's not us. Independent commentators—and again I go back to Mr Sheridan. In the same article, he said: The government's biggest moral failing has been its response to the Israel-Hamas war. And we do see deep fear amongst many in Australia's Jewish community because of the rise of antisemitic behaviour and the threat of violence. All Australians deserve to feel safe, not just our Jewish community. All Australians deserve to know they have a government that will put Australia's security first. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Paterson, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 24 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 28 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Workplace Safety: Engineered Stone Industry 54 17:15 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator McKim, which is also shown at item 13 on today's Order of Business. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:16 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: A national ban on engineered stone has been recommended by Safe Work Australia to protect workers from deadly silicosis, it must be implemented nationally no later than 1 July 2024 since every day of delay means more workers dying, and no one should die for a shiny bench top. I know there often things that divide this chamber—in fact, we've just had a debate on matters of national security and the like that divide this chamber—but surely something that is protecting the lives of young workers, that's saving families from the loss of breadwinners, and that's actually implementing recommendations from our national safe work authorities should unite our chamber. The Greens have brought this motion calling on this house to support a national ban on the use and importation of engineered stone by no later than 1 July 2024 as a chance for this house to unite. It's a chance for politics to unite, to say that no longer should any young worker die and literally choke themselves to death as a result of silicosis simply so somebody can have a shiny benchtop. Tragically, that is what is happening in this country at the moment. Thank goodness we've had a strong campaign from the construction union, the CFMEU, on this. I've been working with them for years in their push to get a ban on engineered and manufactured stone because they've seen their members die. Young members—tragically, many of them under 30—are being diagnosed with terminal silicosis because they've been working with the dust formed when they cut engineered stone. Engineered stone wasn't even available until 20 years ago, and we managed to have commercial fit-outs, kitchens and shiny benchtops before we started working with engineered stone. Almost all engineered stone is, in fact, imported. We know it's a product that is killing workers, from the dust created and inhaled. Finally, in August of this year, after too much delay, Safe Work Australia put out their clear, unambiguous recommendation. It wasn't to hold off and wait. It wasn't to put more work health safety protections around. It wasn't to wear masks. It wasn't to do wet cutting. It was to ban the use of engineered stone. Why did they do that? Let's read from their recommendation. They said: Engineered stone workers are dramatically over-represented amongst workers diagnosed with silicosis—the vast majority of silicosis cases identified in recent years are in engineered stone workers, yet they make up only 2% of those exposed to RCS— respirable crystalline silica— at work. Exposure to RCS from engineered stone causes silicosis typified by a faster onset and more rapid progression than that caused by RCS from other sources, including natural stone. This has resulted in debilitating disease in young engineered stone workers, the majority of which are under 35. Then they said: There is no scientific evidence for a 'safe' threshold of crystalline silica content in engineered stone. Finally, they said: The increased risks posed by RCS from engineered stone, increased rate of silicosis diagnosis amongst engineered stone workers, and the faster and more severe disease progression amongst this group, combined with a multi-faceted failure of this industry to comply with the model WHS laws means that continued work with engineered stone poses an unacceptable risk to workers. The use of all engineered stone should be prohibited. Well, let's do it, and let's do it now. Let's commit to doing it absolutely no later than 1 July next year. We have heard at different times from the former coalition government that it wasn't a national issue. It absolutely is now, with this recommendation from Safe Work Australia. Given this product is almost entirely imported, the Commonwealth government could shut this industry down in a heartbeat with an importation ban and then a ban on its use. That's absolutely what we should do. When we see companies in this space, like Caesarstone, getting people like Hawker Britton—who we know have close connections to the Labor Party—to be their lobbyists in this place, warning bells go off. We need a clear commitment from the Albanese government, and I hope we get it, to ban engineered stone and to ban it no later than 1 July. We need the coalition to end their silence on this and, finally, to say clearly that no young worker should die at work because they or their mates want a shiny benchtop. 17:21 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia All Australians, regardless of their occupation or how they are engaged, have a right to a healthy and safe work environment. Silicosis is an awful disease, and we recognise the serious nature of the risks associated with excessive exposure to respirable crystalline silica. That's why the former coalition government took a leadership role on this issue, given the significant impact on workers and their families across this country. When in government, we established the National Dust Disease Taskforce as part of a $5 million election commitment to develop a national approach to the prevention, early identification, control and management of occupational dust diseases in Australia. The former coalition government worked with the states and territories to develop a nationally coordinated all-of-government response to the taskforce's final report, which was endorsed on 4 April 2022. We supported the response with $11 million over four years as part of the 2022-23 March budget to respond to the non-regulatory recommendations made in the taskforce's final report. This funding supported an enhanced focus on prevention activities; improved support for affected workers and their families; upskilling and improving expertise and knowledge of medical professionals; and strengthening the evidence base and research capability. As a result of this report, commissioned by the former coalition government, the current government passed the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023. This established the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry, providing access to information about occupational respiratory diseases. It supports the identification of industries, occupations, job tasks and workplaces where there is a risk of exposure to respiratory-disease-causing agents. The coalition remains strongly committed to reducing the incidence of silicosis and other dust diseases amongst workers, and to increasing the quality of life for affected workers and their families. Given our longstanding commitment to this issue and the extensive work undertaken while in government, we are happy to work with this government in ensuring the passage of legislation which creates the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry in response to the growing incidence of silicosis among Australian workers. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry will play an important role in addressing the growing incidence of silicosis and other occupational respiratory dust diseases in Australia. Of course, the coalition will carefully assess all measures the government puts forward in the near future. While all governments will have to respond to the Safe Work Australia report through the workplace health and safety ministers' meeting, the government needs to ensure appropriate consideration and compensation for smaller businesses and many self-employed Australians in jurisdictions that participated in licensing schemes and the changes in process they complied with, ensuring they're given the opportunity to recoup any expenses if a ban is brought forward by the workplace health and safety ministers' meeting. We will not pre-empt the recommendation from Safe Work Australia and, in the same situation, we should not pre-empt the decision of the workplace health and safety ministers' meeting. 17:24 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Perched on the end of his chair and struggling to breathe, 56-year-old Dinh Tran uses all his strength to point to the table to his left, 'They are my friends,' he says, referring to the bottles of bills waiting in line to relieve him of some of the pain and anxiety. The other hand pats an oxygen tank. 'I see them every day; they're all my friends,' he smiles wryly. Tran is dying of silicosis, an incurable, preventable, work related lung disease which was caused in his case by inhaling tiny particles of crystalline silica dust released every time he cut ground and shaped engineered stone, such as Caesarstone, into kitchen benchtops and bathroom vanities. In August last year, doctors told him he had eight months to live. It was never his plan to end his days like this. His world is reduced to a few rooms in his home, tethered to an oxygen tank, and he is unable to find the words to tell his children their father is dying. In an article reliving Tran's experience, Adele Ferguson wrote: When he left Vietnam and signed up for work at Exquisite Marble & Granite in Sydney's western suburbs, he had no idea it would kill him. Engineered stone and the consequences are a real threat to so many Australians who are now suffering both the indignity and the consequences of this poorly regulated, poorly oversighted and poorly engaged substance. As we know, primarily constitutionally, the occupational health and safety requirements of the states and territories play a pivotal role in any arrangement in dealing with this terrible disease. And it's important that we have a response from across the states and territories. As part of those detailed responses to this horrific disease, there's a meeting of ministers on 13 December between all workers health and safety ministers, chaired by Minister Burke. The consequences of this horrific disease have led to a number of initiatives, including $10 million over four years to address silicosis; $4.2 million to expand the functions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency; the national dust disease registry, which goes to critical issues and detection and prevention activities; $1.2 million for Safe Work Australia social partners; and $4.7 million over four years for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to progress ongoing reforms. There's nothing you can say that can take away from the horrific statistics, as a study last year by Curtin University found. Nearly 500,000 workers were exposed to crystalline silica at work,10,000 Australians could develop lung cancer due to exposure, and 103,000 Australians could develop silicosis. We look at the history of the investigations, the whistleblowing, the industry concerns, the work of the CFMEU construction union, the Australian Workers Union, the health experts and the organisations over a long period of time. We look back to June 2014, when there were opportunities to make a change. A report written by a stonemason was handed to the then minister, Eric Abetz, calling for action on the dangers of engineered stone. It took five years to act—of course, we have the National Dust Disease Taskforce—while unions, workers, families and workgroups all campaigned for action. Graeme Edwards, a former member of the National Dust Disease Taskforce, has been warning of the dangers of silicosis since 2018. When you compare that with what the opposition is well known to do—delay, delay, delay, when it comes to workers health and safety, or represent those who actually diminish workers health and safety— one person who was in this parliament always comes to mind, Julie Bishop. She was the CSR representative. She was a person who stood up and said, when questioned about her representation on disadvantaging people in asbestos— (Time expired) 17:29 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia No worker should ever get a terminal illness just because they rocked up to work. No worker should get a terminal illness because they installed the shiny benchtop that I was very excited about back in 2009. We hear that since 2014 people have been making a call on legislators right around the country to say this has to stop, and it has to stop now. I dread to think how many people in the time that artificial stone, or silica, benchtops have been around—I guess it's since the nineties; I can't quite recall how long—have unnecessarily acquired a fatal disease because we did not act soon enough. While primary responsibility for work health and safety rests with the states and territories, that is no excuse for not taking a leadership position nationally and getting it done. When I asked questions at estimates in previous years, our national work health and safety agencies at the time said, 'We can't say anything about this because we are in the hands of the states.' To me that was a crying shame, because very clearly, based on the scientific evidence and the health research, they should have been able to say, 'It is clearly in the public interest to ban this product, and we would encourage the states and territories to do so.' There is no excuse not to play a leadership role to get this done. The details of the national response, I understand, are going to be finalised on 13 December at a meeting between all work health and safety ministers, chaired by Minister Burke, because this has to stop but we also know we have to mitigate the risk of acquiring this disease from products that we can't ban. It might be silica dust from mines, quarries, roads, tunnel construction projects for public transport, cement, concrete and excavating. These are all projects and products that present a silica risk and where we have to be absolutely proactive in ensuring the highest standard of occupational health and safety, such as the wearing of masks and the use of extraction fans. In talking to the CFMMEU just yesterday, I heard a story about a woman who had acquired silicosis just from working in reception at a quarry. Perhaps the extraction fans out the back weren't going and she was particularly susceptible, or perhaps there's a large cohort of people who have been exposed in a workplace like that. Unions around the country—the CFMMEU, the AMWU—have worked very hard on this. They had a recent win in seeing Bunnings, in response to silicosis, make the call to stop selling engineered stone by the end of the year. They're now calling on Ikea to do the same. The states and territories have unanimously agreed to our government's recommendation to fast-track consideration of a ban on unsafe engineered stone. I expect the logical conclusion to this would be also to ban its import, because if it's not a legal product here then we need to make sure we also stop it at our borders. Finally, we have to keep moving on preventing this kind of disease into the future. When someone renovates or demolishes my house in the future, that benchtop will be there—just like the painted-over asbestos in the laundry. We will have to continue to innovate in how we regulate this product for many years to come, just like we do with asbestos. We've got to have safe disposal of it and we've got to stand up for workers. (Time expired) 17:35 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to speak in support of Senator McKim 's matter of urgency. It has been estimated 600,000 Australian tradies are exposed to silica dust every year. The stone benchtop industry is only one of many ways Australians can be exposed to silica dust. Like asbestos, it only takes a little to kill you. Silica dust is 100 times smaller than a grain of sand, and you can breathe it in without even knowing it. Exposure to asbestos took us so many years to do anything about. Exposure to silica will take just months for symptoms to show, unlike asbestos. Silicosis is not new and there have been many state and federal inquiries, but, as usual, governments have been slow to act. According to the Australian Lung Foundation a lack of government investment in research and monitoring has made it impossible to work out how many Australians are suffering from silicosis. That is why Senator Pocock and I wanted to split out the silicosis amendment from the Closing the Loopholes bill, because it brings silica in line with asbestos and would start gathering national data. The average age of a silicosis sufferer is 35, and at 35 many would have young families. Many would more than likely be our young sons and daughters, and to have a diagnosis at that age would be utterly devastating. In October Safe Work Australia released its report on silica. It recommends a national ban on engineered stone benchtops and a special licensing scheme for the handling of existing benchtops. It also said no level of silica is safe—not one bit—for tradies. The unions are united. Senator Pocock and I stood with representatives to call for a ban, and retailers are getting on board. Bunnings has banned it and Ikea has announced they are scrapping their stone benchtop range. We know there is a problem when retailers and the unions are moving ahead and the government is sitting on the perch. When the Safe Work Australia report was released a month ago, Minister Burke said the government should 'act as soon as possible for people to be safe'. Well, I am wondering what the minister has been doing besides wasting time blocking his own legislation from going through the House. It is time that our federal government placed a national ban on engineered stone. There is no excuse not to. It is just rubbish. You have Labor states all over the place. Fix the problem. It can't be that hard. It has taken 100 years to do something about asbestos and you cannot waste another minute. But what is more disappointing is this is the national issue. I wonder if you have bothered to take it to national cabinet and discuss it, because, seriously, when you have all those Labor states out there, there is no longer an excuse for not getting this job done. Once again, this is another one that could have been done before Christmas time. Once again, you are sitting on the perch when it comes to safety of others in workplaces. 17:38 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia The Labor government and this parliament must listen to the voices of Australian workers, their families and the experts and immediately ensure a national ban on engineered stone. Australian workers are dying when they cut the engineered stone for our bathrooms and kitchens, and why? Because that stone contains up to 95 per cent silica dust and this silica dust causes silicosis. Silicosis, while entirely preventable, is an irreversible disease resulting in permanent disability and death. It is an occupational lung disease caused by breathing in small particles of silica dust. When breathed in, this dust is a small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs, causing permanent lung damage. While not a new disease, incidences of silicosis have risen with the popularity of engineered stone benchtops and there is no known cure. There are so many devastating testimonies on the public record from Australians affected first-hand by this preventable disease. Alan from Brisbane was diagnosed with silicosis at the age of 43 and just wants to be around to see his grandkids grow up. Joanna from Montrose, Victoria, a 34-year-old mother of two girls, was diagnosed with silicosis. She is angry there were no signs or warnings in her old workplace to tell workers of the dangers of exposure to silica dust. Thirty-four-year-old Alan from Victoria was diagnosed with silicosis along with three other workers from his quarry on the same day. These are just some stories from the more than 600 workers in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland currently diagnosed with silicosis. The use of silica is widespread in many Australian industries, and more than half a million Australian workers are currently exposed to this deadly dust. Of these workers, modelling predicts that over 100,000 will be diagnosed with silicosis, and 10,000 Australians will develop lung cancer as a direct result of this exposure. This is unacceptable, and it's entirely preventable. We've known the devastating impact of engineered stone on workers' health for years now. The CFMMEU have been calling for urgent national action since 2020 with their Stop this Killer Stone campaign, clearly calling for a ban on the importation and manufacturing of engineered stone. Now Safe Work Australia, as our country's workplace safety watchdog, has recommended a prohibition on the use of all engineered stone, irrespective of its silica content, to protect the health and safety of workers. They say that a comprehensive ban will reduce illness and death, increase the quality of life for workers, avoid health system costs and improve workplace productivity. A national plan is not just needed but long overdue. Primarily a state issue, our work health and safety laws are inconsistent across jurisdictions. State based regulators have failed to effectively police workplaces to guard against this danger. Urgent reform is needed. Health and safety professionals, medical practitioners and trade unions are all calling for a ban on the importation and manufacture of imported stone, as are the National Dust Disease Taskforce, the Australian Medical Association, the Lung Foundation Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Australian Institute of Health & Safety and many unions, including, of course, the ACTU. When will the Labor government act? The government have taken a positive step in the closing loopholes bill but have not gone far enough. They must take the lead on banning the importation and manufacture of engineered stone, saving the lives of countless Australian workers. There is a clear appetite—we can see it here in this chamber this evening—for this change. Every day of delay means more workers die, and no-one should die for a benchtop. Every death from silicosis is a preventable one, and I call on the Labor government to ban this deadly product now. 17:42 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory As Senator Barbara Pocock said, on 16 August, Safe Work Australia handed down their unambiguous decision: engineered stone is killing Australians, and these deaths are entirely preventable. What we need is some political will and some political courage to make this happen. The government can and must act now to ban engineered stone in Australia, including a full import ban. It's rather ironic that two of the senators the government accuses of not caring about workers by taking the time to look through the IR bill are the part of the crossbench pushing the government to put workers first here. Act now. On 14 November, my crossbench colleagues and I wrote to ministers calling on them to take this one simple action to save lives. So far, we've had one response, from the Tasmanian government. I'd like to thank Minister Ogilvie for her response and for her government's support for a prohibition on engineered stone. We wrote to nine ministers, and we've received one response. Eight of those ministers are from Labor governments. We've heard from the Liberal government. Bunnings and Ikea have acted on this. What are we waiting for, as politicians, as legislators—as decision-makers? How many more young Australians need to lose their lives? We've surely learnt from the tragedy of asbestos. We now have the data. We have the recommendation. It's time to act. I thank the Greens for bringing forward this motion. I thank the crossbench for their work on this. And I call on the federal Labor government to show leadership with an import ban and to work with states to ban engineered stone across the country. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 58 DOCUMENTS Consideration 58 COMMITTEES 59 COMMITTEES National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee 59 Report 59 17:45 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the report of the committee on local governance on Norfolk Island. Public Works Joint Committee 59 Report 59 17:45 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's ninth report of 2023. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee 59 Report 59 17:46 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. It's an inquiry into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia, and I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the report. Leave granted. Senator DODSON SR5 I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As chair of this committee, it is a bittersweet moment to table this report. It's a very significant report on behalf of Indigenous people's rights, but it will be my last report to this parliament. I want to first thank all of those who engaged in the inquiry by providing submissions or appearing as witnesses. I particularly thank the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and organisations. I cannot list you all right now, but your thoughtfulness was so valuable. I also want to acknowledge the work of the many people around the world who have contributed to the advancement of Indigenous peoples' rights, such as Madame Daes, the founding chairperson of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, with whom I worked back in the eighties; Dr Sheryl Lightfoot, a current member of the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that provided expertise to this inquiry; Sir Taihakurei Durie of the New Zealand Maori Council; and Professor Claire Charters. This report is the culmination of the contributions from many experts, public officials, organisations and community members who generously shared their insights and experiences with this committee. This inquiry saw a significant number of Indigenous witnesses: representatives of the Sami parliament in Finland and Norway, First Nations, Inuit and Metis of Canada, Maori of New Zealand, and of course, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of this country. There is true value in listening to First Peoples. Indigenous perspectives deepened the committee's understanding of the complex matters we explored and were indispensable to this report. Background to UNDRIP UNDRIP was drafted and formally debated for almost 20 years before its adoption by the United Nations General Assembly in 2007. It remains the most comprehensive universal human rights instrument addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples. Australia has been a signatory since 2009, and so we accept the UNDRIP to be a 'standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect,' and that comes straight from UNDRIP. The UNDRIP contains 46 articles affirming the collective and individual rights of Indigenous peoples. These relate to cultural, spiritual, economic and social rights, rights of self-determination, and to be free from discrimination. Importantly, UNDRIP does not create any new or special rights. It reflects existing human rights from other instruments and applies them to the specific context of affected Indigenous peoples. Overview of the c ommittee i nquiry We were asked to undertake an inquiry into the application of UNDRIP in Australia, with particular reference to: the international experience of implementing UNDRIP, options to improve adherence to UNDRIP in Australia, how the Uluru Statement could support the application of UNDRIP. We held seven hearings and we had the benefit of over 140 submissions. We drew on international experiences. When we drew on those, we explored the successes and the challenges. We were also conscious to ensure the unique Australian circumstance was considered. UNDRIP as a standard consistent with our democracy It is clear the UNDRIP offers us an accepted standard for an improved relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Some in this place might get nervous about the idea of international standards. However, there is no need for that, because they are consistent with our Western democratic institutions. The UNDRIP reaffirms the rights of Indigenous peoples, but it also guarantees that the realisation of these rights must preserve the integrity and unity of the nation state—that is, the unity of Australia. Like many human rights instruments, UNDRIP reinforces fundamental pillars of our democracy: freedom from discrimination, a right to celebrate cultural and spiritual diversity, and to speak one's language and raise families in peace and prosperity. These should be the aspirations of any healthy Western democracy. When Indigenous peoples etched their aspirations into UNDRIP, they did so with the wellbeing and survival of future generations in mind. It was born out of a shared history of dispossession and loss. The UNDRIP is a touchstone for how modern nations, like Australia, move forward with First Peoples. It provides a structure to that process and avoids Indigenous rights being tabooed or applied only in an ad hoc or selective way. These rights will become real when they are determined and achieved domestically through negotiation with First Peoples. We must continue to seek common ground, with courage and not capitulation. Committee findings and recommendations This report makes six recommendations on how to improve adherence to UNDRIP in Australia. Broadly, we recommend that the approach to developing policy and legislation affecting First Peoples be consistent with UNDRIP. We suggest the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 be amended to include consideration of UNDRIP. This will be a simple and effective way and means of improving how we in this place consider Indigenous people's rights in the development of laws. The committee recommends developing a national action plan that is determined in consultation with First Peoples to outline an approach to implementing the UNDRIP in Australia. This is underway in Canada and New Zealand. It can be a mechanism for us to design the way forward together. Decisions about the form and content of the plan will require deep and committed negotiation with First Peoples and it will take time because the consultation must be thorough. First Peoples' contributions must determine the application of this in our context and how they should proceed. Such efforts should occur in coordination with all levels of government. As senators, we know the important role that states and territories play. We also recommend greater education on Australian history, civics and human rights, because international experience tells us this is key. Finally, the committee recommends that the Commonwealth establish an independent process of truth telling and agreement making. I have not had the courtesy of reviewing the additional comments or contrary positions that may be contained within this report, so I can make no comment on those. However, the evidence was overwhelmingly clear and our terms of reference specifically asked us to explore these reform ideas. The principles underscoring such aspirations are reflected in UNDRIP. Concluding remarks The UNDRIP is a strong foundation for taking Australia forward in its relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, a relationship underpinned by a mutual recognition of, and respect for, one another's rights and responsibilities. At the heart of this report is a call for governments and civil society to genuinely engage with the rights of Indigenous peoples. It proposes possible ways to do so in a coordinated and good-faith manner. I hope that the report provides guidance to us all as legislators to look towards achieving common ground for our nation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T I call Senator Cox. Senator Thorpe 280304 Point of order— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Yes, you did jump first— Senator Thorpe 280304 I jumped first. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Thorpe, Senator Cox was going to help me out by taking the chair so that I could also speak, so I took the liberty— Senator Thorpe 280304 I didn't realise there was a deal done before I stood up. If I'd known— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Thorpe, I don't need to debate this with you. Senator Cox has the call. Senator Thorpe, you have the call next. 17:54 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to take note of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs report into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. UNDRIP was adopted in 2007, and at first Australia was one of four countries who actually voted down being a signatory to UNDRIP. It came on board in 2009, only a few short years later, alongside Canada, the US and New Zealand. UNDRIP contains rights and principles that are common amongst First Peoples, and it's commonly known that UNDRIP was written for First Peoples by First Peoples. That's the way we should remember the importance of that. It is also said that UNDRIP doesn't contain any new or specific rights, but it is more so a combination of rights that are contained in other treaties, reframed slightly better to acknowledge the unique struggles and perspectives of Indigenous peoples. As someone who has attended many UN fora across the globe, I can say that it is a struggle for Indigenous voices to frame and reframe constantly the position and unique experiences that First Nations people, First Peoples or Indigenous peoples have. However, what the report shows is that no one country is doing a particularly great job in relation to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In fact, the Canadian model—the C-15 bill—was part of the drafting of this bill, which I was part of when it was in the Greens party room. The New Zealand model, the Treaty of Waitangi, which has been in existence for quite some time, talks about dedicated seats in parliament, which goes to the heart of those four principles that Senator Dodson already mentioned around self-determination, participation in decision-making, respect for culture and protection of culture, equality and nondiscrimination. I wasn't part of the hearings of this committee; I was watching from the outside as an observer. In fact, I was able to gain great insight into the work of the Joint Standing Committee on this report, particularly through the chair, Senator Dodson, towards the end of its drafting. Of recommendations 1 to 6, one in particular that I thought was important for us to have was independent oversight of such a critical issue that affects the lives and the human rights of Indigenous peoples in this country. I have also submitted additional comments because I think it was important to try to use an example or bring to life the importance of the domestication of UNDRIP. I use the examples of respect for First Nations water rights to allow cultural flows that are distinct and different from the environmental flows, the importance that water holds for First Nations culture, and the protection of that, particularly when we are implementing UNDRIP. It's critical that we use those types of examples, and I included them in my comments in the report. I thank the members of the committee whom I had the pleasure of being able to work through some of these recommendations with at the last sitting. In particular, I thank Senator Dodson as the chair of this committee. Senator Dodson, alongside the secretariat, was able to provide lots of insight for me in his role as chair and in his capacity as someone who has championed many of these issues in his lifetime. I thank him for the work that he's done, particularly in his role as a Special Envoy for Reconciliation and the Implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I remember my first time in this place and being part of the Northern Australian Committee, working alongside you on the Juukan Gorge A way forward report. I want to acknowledge how gracious you've been in working in collaboration with me. I think it's a standout feature to have someone as chair who is not only a gentleman but also a person who is able to articulate some of the issues from their lifetime—it was your knowledge and your experience that you were able to share, particularly with me. I have great respect for your work, and I will be sad to see you leave this place, in announcing your retirement today. But thank you for your work and thank you for the legacy that you have brought in this piece, in this final report for UNDRIP. 18:00 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak on the report of the inquiry into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—what we call the UNDRIP—by the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. This inquiry emerged from an earlier inquiry into the application of UNDRIP in Australia which I initiated in March last year and which lapsed at the end of the last parliament. At the start of this parliament, the government, instead of allowing me to re-establish my original inquiry to continue its work, forced, without precedent, a new inquiry with changed terms of reference. These were much less inclusive or solution focused. But they were clearly intended to spruik the government's pursuit of a voice to parliament as implementing the UNDRIP. Nevertheless, the report tabled today, which draws on evidence not just from the current inquiry but also from my previous inquiry, clearly shows that ensuring our rights are protected and adhered to takes much more than a powerless representative body. The UNDRIP can do so much more for our people than the voice ever could. It is not divisive but embraced by communities all over the country—in fact, all over the world. The UNDRIP doesn't create new rights for first peoples but it embodies many human rights principles, already protected under international customary and treaty law. It sets minimum standards for human rights for Indigenous peoples and government interactions with us. It is not asking for special treatment and it has been developed by Indigenous peoples from across the world over many years. As the term 'minimum standard' already tells you, it's a simple yet powerful basis for pursuing justice for First Nations people in this country. But the settler colonial states are incredibly scared of it, just as we saw today with Labor announcing in the paper—and they couldn't even bring themselves to tell me this—that they were not supporting it. There were only four countries which opposed the UNDRIP when it was first adopted by the United Nations in 2007. Guess who they were? The United States, Canada, New Zealand and, of course, the lucky country called Oz: Australia—all settler colonial states. When Australia finally endorsed the declaration in 2009, it was clear that it did not intend to actually implement it: just like Labor today won't implement it! This has been proven again and again by the inaction at all levels of government in implementing it and by the often blatant breaches of our rights as first peoples—by dispossessing us and destroying our country; desecrating and destroying our sacred sites; ignoring first peoples' concerns; or not even consulting, to name just a few. Australia's human rights record is shocking—we know that. It seems to be the norm these days. It's record of complying with the UNDRIP principles—first and foremost, the core principles are of self-determination, where we decide our own future and not the Labor Party; the right to free, prior and informed consent; and a right to maintain and practice culture. The tabled report includes a long list of additional comments and recommendations from me. Time does not allow me to expand on all of these, but I will touch on a few. I welcome the committee recommending the development of a national action plan, which is great, to implement UNDRIP and to pursue truth and treaty—even though they wouldn't even vote for it yesterday. In particular, I wish to underline our peoples calls for truth and treaty, even though yesterday Labor voted down truth and treaty. We've been calling for this since the first day this country was colonised, and these processes need to be pursued immediately. Their compatibility and, indeed, the complementary and beneficial effects of implementing the UNDRIP have been clearly outlined in the committee report. We cannot waste any more time in pursuing them alongside each other. I also welcome the recommendation to amend the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to include the consideration of UNDRIP. Knowing how legislation breaches the rights of our First Peoples, this can increase government consideration of our rights and build pressure to adhere to them. And, so, this is an easy yet potent step to take. In fact, this is something I have argued for for a while, and I wish to foreshadow that tomorrow I will seek to introduce a private senators bill to amend the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to include the consideration of UNDRIP to immediately progress that recommendation. Besides these commendable recommendations, the committee's core recommendation for a national action plan fails to take into account one of the most striking pieces of evidence received during the inquiry. There was overwhelming support from around the world, from international and national witnesses, aside from the Australian government and its agencies, that a legislative approach to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides clear advantages over a policy approach. Even the committee itself in this report acknowledged this, yet it could not bring itself to recommend it. As a Labor dominated committee, where you can hardly get a word in, the committee members commitment to avoid pressuring their government into anything is, sadly, higher than the commitment to First Nations justice. How much is it really a committee for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? Legislative implementation of the UNDRIP is a fundamental principle of international law and has been recommended by member states of the United Nations. It would provide greater support for clarification of principles such as self-determination and free, prior and informed consent. History has shown that implementing the UNDRIP has not been a priority for Australian governments, including this one, on all levels, and there has been widespread assessment of this country's failure to comply with the principles of the declaration. Legislative implementation of the UNDRIP would ensure greater protection, promotion and prioritisation of our rights as First Peoples and ensure that the advancement of these rights remains a responsibility of any future government independently of their political leaning. Policy based approaches to implementing UNDRIP can result in future government's deprioritising its advancement, which can lead to significant delays in implementation, as can be seen in the case of New Zealand, or it could be abandoned altogether. So you're putting it at risk, Labor. Given Australia's colonial history, the ongoing resulting injustices and structural racism, and the lack of even a broader human rights framework in this country to revert to, this is not a risk that we can take as a nation. Next week, my private senator's bill, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill, is up for debate. It mirrors the Canadian bill, where—according to what we learnt during the inquiry—nothing ever progressed implementation of UNDRIP as much as legislating it. There have been great outcomes for communities in Canada already as a result. My bill will require the Commonwealth government to take measures to ensure consistency between Commonwealth law and the declaration. Yet today, I read in the Guardianthat the Labor caucus decided not to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples being legislated in this country. Well, shame on you, Labor. Shame, shame, gammon, shame! 18:10 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Today, the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has tabled a report in the Senate following its inquiry into the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the most comprehensive international instrument on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It was adopted by the United Nations in 2007 and sets out a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples around the world. Our committee's inquiry set out to look at how UNDRIP could apply in Australia. Specifically, it looked at the international experience of implementing UNDRIP; it looked at options to improve adherence to UNDRIP principles in Australia; and it looked at how implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart can support the application of UNDRIP. Earlier this year, many members of the committee had the opportunity to listen to the community and Indigenous organisations across Australia, from the land of the Whadjuk Noongar people in Perth, to Wiradjuri country in New South Wales, to the lands of Gimuy Walubara Yidinji clans in Queensland and the Wurundjeri people in Victoria. We listened to them about what they wanted for the future. This report is a culmination of the lessons learnt from listening to those on the ground. It sets the foundation for an ambitious agenda to move forward into action and better lives for First Nations people in this country, to make a real difference that First Nations Australians can feel a part of and to move all Australians forward together. This committee, led by Senator Pat Dodson, Uncle Pat, has worked hard to ensure we reflect grassroots views and learn from community stories, experience and evidence. The report tabled today makes several recommendations about how UNDRIP should apply in Australia, but I just want to highlight two here today for the sake of time. The first is a recommendation that an independent process of truth-telling and agreement-making is established, as requested by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, to support healing and assist the implementation of UNDRIP. The committee heard, time and time again, about the strong alignment between the Uluru Statement from the Heart and UNDRIP. Based on the evidence we heard, the request for a makarrata commission to oversee truth-telling and agreement-making remains consistent with UNDRIP. Two weeks ago, I hosted a delegation of Victorian First Nations leaders in Canberra to talk about how we can shape future policy to ensure Indigenous people can achieve life outcomes commensurate with non-Indigenous people. The Victorian delegation involved people across several different sectors—legal, health, education and traditional owner corporations. Despite their varied professions, they agreed on this one thing: the continued importance of treaty and truth-telling for the future of Indigenous affairs policy in Australia and the scope to learn from the experience in Victoria. The second recommendation I want to highlight from the UNDRIP report is about education. And this isn't just for schools and for young people. This is relevant to every single person in Australia. There needs to be education so that every person in Australia knows our rich history and the inherent rights of First Nations people, because that supports our human dignity, distinctive culture, historical continuity and connection to our lands. There needs to be education so that acknowledgements of country aren't just tokenistic 'tick-a-box' exercises but are made with a depth of understanding and pride about who we are as a nation. There needs to be education so that the celebration of our culture isn't just limited to NAIDOC weeks but takes place every single day. Going forward, our government will ensure that our response to those recommendations is determined in partnership and through continued meaningful consultations with First Nations people. To do otherwise would be entirely inconsistent with the very principles of UNDRIP. We must take the time to get this right. I'm very proud to have contributed to this work. I want to thank all the witnesses who took the time to contribute to this national discussion. You contributed a significant part. Thank you to Uncle Pat and my colleagues on the committee not only for their efforts in relation to the report but also for continuing to advocate for better outcomes and quality of life for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. While I'm on my feet, I want to take this moment to stay thank you to Uncle Pat. Thank you for your contribution to this nation and for fighting for First Nations justice. Your legacy will forever be felt in this place. Thank you for your courage and commitment to our people, now and forever. Thanks, Uncle Pat. 18:16 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I also rise to speak on this incredibly important report, produced under the custodianship of the wonderful Senator Pat Dodson, who I have been proud to serve with on the WA Labor Senate ticket. It is rather sneaky! I think he tried to get away without people having the opportunity to respond to a valedictory statement. There's only one way to deal with that, and that is to get in first. The UNDRIP statement affirms that all peoples contribute to the richness of civilisations and culture that contribute to the common heritage of humankind. In that context, Pat, you have been such an enormous asset to our nation throughout your whole life. The way you have elevated visibility of First Nations identity has created room and space for something that was long overdue in our nation, and that is for more Australians—and all Australians—to have the opportunity and the ability to identify with First Nations culture as a part of our own Australian identity. It's something you have taught me in spades, and it's something I feel richly rewarded by. To borrow some of your own culture's words, Senator Dodson—through you, Deputy President—you have brought much mabu liyan to this place. Mabu means 'good' and liyan means 'wellbeing'. You have brought much mabu liyan to this place and to our nation. Those words are what connect and create that sense of place and culture, which is where heart and soul are connected to country and connected to wellbeing. Your culture has taught me that in very profound ways. Senator Dodson has brought that in spades to this place, in terms of our own history and heritage as a nation, through the strength of the culture that he has brought to this place. I am deeply honoured to have served with him. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I ask for the last speaker to seek leave to continue their remarks. 18:20 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I also rise to briefly comment on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, led by Senator Dodson. Senator Dodson has urged us all to ensure the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples applies strongly here in Australia, and that the human rights of first peoples are recognised, respected and enacted. Senator Dodson is a true leader of reconciliation in this country. One of the honours of serving in the Labor caucus is being invited, as a non-Indigenous senator, to our First Nations caucus. That's where I first met Senator Dodson and discovered that the legend that is the father of reconciliation is also one of the kindest and funniest humans in this place—and well beyond this place. Many of us over here are slightly destroyed by his imminent departure. We will miss the vision of a better country that he holds in his heart and in his words: the call to build and keep alight, as he has said, the camp fire on the hill; and the call to build a better country for his people and for all Australians. We know these calls will continue from a place on the country of the Yawuru people—a more quiet and beautiful place than this place, I am sure! In his beloved Australian Labor Party, we will continue to heed his calls. Thank you, Pat. 18:22 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand up and speak on this Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs report, not because I want to speak on the committee report but because I want to say something about one of the true gentlemen that have been in this place. It has been a real honour to have served in this place with Senator Dodson for the time that he has been here. You've been an amazing representative of your people, not just your people from your Indigenous family but also the people of Western Australia. One of the things I think you can walk out of here with your head held high about, with that hat on it—that hat that we're all going to miss, because it's become such a part of this place—is that you never played the politics; you always played the policy. Every time you stood and made a contribution in this place, every time I've heard you speak, you've always spoken from the heart and you've always spoken about how policy is going to make a difference. You always looked to the outcome; you never looked for the game. I think your old-school approach to politics and this place is going to be absolutely missed. I think you have been an example to many of us of how you can proudly represent a difference of opinion across the aisle, whether it's across this side to that side, or down to the other end of the chamber. You always did it with extraordinary dignity, and I think this place is going to be absolutely the worse for not having you around. It's always very sad when you see somebody leave, but there's something about Western Australians. There are a couple of Western Australians that have, I suppose, been true to the spirit of how you've operated in this place. It reminded me back to another amazing Western Australian, Joe Bullock, who I think represented his state in the same way that you did. He came in here with true conviction. He came in here because he truly believed. He was always consistent in everything he did. He was never convenient and never took a line just because it was convenient to do so for a short-term gain. He always played the long game. Senator Dodson, that's how I've always viewed you. It's been a great honour to have served with you. 18:24 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I rise to speak about the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—oh, bugger the report! I want to give my mate a hug! Gonna miss you, mate! I love you like a brother. 18:24 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I want to make a short contribution to this debate. I want to acknowledge Senator Dodson. I've just had a chat with him. I hope he doesn't mind me saying now what I said to him privately a moment ago. Whenever Senator Dodson speaks, he is someone well worth listening to with your full attention because he speaks with his full attention. When he stands in this place, to me, it seems like he is firmly connected, with his feet, to the earth and to this country that he is on. He has announced today that he is going to retire from the Senate. I think that will be a very sad day for the Senate, but I think it is time for Senator Dodson to get back to his people and to his country. I'm sure he will stand as firmly on that country as he does on the country that we are on today. I have to reflect on the time I've spent on parliamentary inquiries with Senator Dodson, particularly the Senate inquiry into offshore detention. I well remember the humanity, the grace, the gravitas and the utter decency that Senator Dodson brought to his work on that committee and the heart that he showed for the people, including the children, who were locked up in Australia's offshore detention regime. Senator Dodson, this place will sorely miss what you bring to it. I join other senators in wishing you all the very, very best for the future. 18:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Given that this is turning into the valedictory that Senator Dodson did not want, I would not want to miss the opportunity to add a few words to this debate, which is, of course, about a report that he was instrumental in delivering as well. Like many people in this chamber, I first got to know Senator Dodson as a figure on the TV screens over many decades, leading the fight for our First Peoples and leading the fight for basic justice for our First Peoples. I remember as a youngish man watching Senator Dodson in full flight, heavily involved in the debates around the Native Title Act, the royal commission into black deaths in custody—which is an area that we still have so much more to do—and in so many other major public issues facing our country and our First Peoples. For decades, we saw that long, bushy beard that got greyer over time and that big hat. Never in my wildest dreams, when I was watching Senator Dodson in my teens, in my 20s and 30s, did I expect that I would have the honour of serving alongside him as a senator in this chamber. It's not often in life you get to meet your heroes, let alone work with them. And it's very like Senator Dodson to be scoffing at the suggestion that he would be anyone's hero. But he has been a hero of mine for a very long time, and I know he has been a hero to many Australians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Having now got to know the real Senator Dodson, my esteem for him has only risen compared to what I'd already thought of him as a national figure on the TV screen. We talked earlier today about a bush trip that we did together, with a number of other colleagues, through remote Western Australia and the Northern Territory. That was an experience that I will never forget. What I learned from Senator Dodson and from going to some of those incredibly remote communities will stay with me for my whole life. I hope that continues to drive me and those others who experienced that trip to do more. Other senators have talked about the wisdom of Senator Dodson, which, again, I've experienced personally; his wicked sense of humour, which is something that I didn't know he had just from watching him on TV but got to know by serving alongside him; Senator Dodson's quite unique way with words, which I've always wondered whether that may have come from his time as a priest; and his ability to communicate in pictures and in visual form so many really difficult concepts and in ways that really stick with us. I think it would be right to note that I know Senator Dodson, like so many other people in our country, will look back on this year with a tinge of disappointment about the referendum result. The referendum was something that I know he and so many other people campaigned for and worked so hard to build community consensus around for a long time. But I would encourage Senator Dodson to look back on his time in the Senate, and his entire career, as a lifetime of incredible achievement. We don't always get everything we want in politics, unfortunately, and I know that Senator Dodson, like many of us, would have liked to have seen a different outcome in the referendum. But that does not in any way diminish an incredible record of achievement in Australian public life over many decades, both before and since Senator Dodson came to this point. Obviously, there is so much more to be done, as I said. Senator Dodson, in many different ways, has outlined a path forward on some really challenging issues that our country has yet to properly confront. I know that many of us in this chamber will very proudly continue the work that you, Senator Dodson, have set forward over your decades in public office. I know that you'll still be there to give us some suggestions when we're going off the right track as well. Senator Dodson, I'm really honoured to have gotten to know you, to call you a mate and to call you a comrade. Thank you so much to your contribution to our country. You leave the position of our first peoples in a much better state than when you entered public life, and you leave our country in a much better state than it was in before you entered public life as well. So congratulations; I look forward to having a beer with you, mate. 18:31 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to give a contribution on the report being handed down today but also to give thanks and pay my respects to the incredible public service that Senator Dodson has given all Australians in his time, long before reaching the parliament and right up until today. I want to say, Senator Dodson, that we've missed you over these last few months. Your voice of reason, your compassion, your strength and your strong standing have been so clearly missing in this chamber, and it is with great sadness that I learnt today that we won't be able to have your voice of reason on these benches from here on in. But thank you for your service. I want to associate myself with the comments made by your own colleagues, others around the chamber and, of course, Senator Cox and Senator McKim. So often, we strive in this place to bring our full selves, to be honest and to treat each other with dignity and respect. We don't always achieve it, sadly. But I solemnly and wholeheartedly believe that in every moment and in every contribution you have made in this chamber you have done that, and you should be incredibly proud of the contribution you have made and the way you have made it in this nation's parliament. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your love. Thank you for your compassion for this country. 18:33 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I was totally unprepared for this, but I will also take this opportunity, not only to acknowledge the incredible work of Senator Pat Dodson—through you, Deputy President—but also the incredible leadership he has shown in the short time I've been around. He has inspired me. He has made me proud to be a fellow WA senator serving alongside him. It has been an honour and privilege, Senator Dodson. We will miss you, and I do regret not being able to spend the rest of the term I've got here serving alongside you. But your eloquence and wisdom will continue, and will forever remain in our hearts and guide us when we continue to pave the way that you've already started. There's a quote of yours that has always stuck with me, and I want to use this opportunity to remind everyone of it. You said: Australians must understand their own philosophies of equity and honour and mateship and live up to those. And that has to fly across the board. Fear should be the failure to create a united nation within our nation: one that has moved its goalposts a bit to accommodate the First Nations' aspirations. You may not have been amongst us during the referendum campaign, Senator Dodson, but you were there in spirit. And this is a promise on behalf of the future generations to come, and the young ones who have been touched by your leadership and service: we'll continue the work that you've started. Thank you very much. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 67 DOCUMENTS Barossa Gas Project, Infrastructure: Review 67 Order for the Production of Documents 67 BILLS 67 BILLS Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 67

Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023

First Reading 67 18:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland ():  I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. 18:37 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania ():  I ask that this motion be divided so that the question that the bill proceed without formalities is put separately, and I indicate that I wish to make a contribution on the motion that the bill may proceed without formalities. (Quorum formed) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKim, my apologies. I have clarified: I'm going to put the question that the bill proceed without formalities, which would then allow you to speak. 18:40 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Do I have the call to speak? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Yes. Senator McKIM JKM Thank you very much. The reason that formalities are in place in this parliament is so that parliament can carefully consider the legislation that comes before it. The formalities in place in this parliament provide for a series of steps to be gone through as the Senate considers any piece of legislation. They are in place because they reflect principles such as scrutiny, transparency and accountability, all things that are lacking in the way the government has responded to the recent High Court decision that effectively rendered indefinite immigration detention unlawful in Australia. Now, the reason that the formalities should be observed in the case of this bill is that things are moving incredibly quickly. Just this afternoon the High Court released the full reasons for its judgement finding that indefinite immigration detention in Australia is unlawful—and not just unlawful, unconstitutional. There was a writ of habeas corpus issued, effectively saying that the state had kidnapped someone and was illegally depriving them of their liberty. This country has had a problem with liberty since the colonial project was established and so many people who were denied their liberty at that time were transported here from England and other places like Scotland, Wales and Ireland. We have had a problem with our liberty ever since. The High Court has found that liberty is, in fact, important in Australia, and today it released its reasons for that finding. The reason that we should observe the formalities in relation to this piece of legislation is that it is time for the parliament to calm down, to stop panicking and to carefully consider the legislation that is being rammed through this place because the Labor Party is running scared of the opposition. The Prime Minister is running scared of Mr Dutton and, as a result of a confected emergency created by Mr Dutton, the Labor Party has cravenly capitulated. The reason we should be observing the formalities on this bill is so that we can all collectively take a deep breath, take a beat, think about the 30-plus pages of reasons that the High Court has released this afternoon and carefully consider our response. But what we have had from the government, the Labor Party, in this case is one panicked, shoddy, xenophobic piece of legislation that passed through this place heavily amended by panicked, shoddy, xenophobic amendments by the Liberal Party in the previous sitting week. Then we had another shoddy, panicked, xenophobic piece of legislation passed through the House yesterday. Now the government wants to introduce that legislation into the Senate less than an hour after it announced that it would also attempt to legislate a preventive detention regime in Australia and that it would have that legislation through both houses of the parliament this week. Colleagues, this is no way to legislate. This is no way to legislate on such a critical issue as human rights and the deprivation of liberty. Liberty is one of the fundamental rights that exist in any Western democracy. The right to liberty is not an absolute right but it should only be impeded in extreme circumstances, and with an abundance of care. An abundance of care is not what this parliament is demonstrating at the moment. The formalities that are normally attached to any piece of legislative action are a series of requirements that effectively force the parliament to take care with the bills that come before it. Those are normally attached to any piece of legislation unless the Senate decides otherwise, which is of course the question before us here. Some completely or effectively inconsequential bills—in fact many; probably most—do observe the formalities because the default situation in this chamber is that we will carefully and soberly consider pieces of legislation. It has just been announced that a High Court challenge to the legislation that passed in the previous sitting has been lodged today—it was lodged just a few hours ago. I reckon it's going to win. From what I know of that case—and I've had a high-level briefing from one of the lawyers who lodged it—I believe that it has an extremely good chance of winning. So my advice to this parliament is to stop trying to legislate its way out of a High Court decision. It's the Constitution; it isn't some kind of 'vibe' of the thing. It's the High Court of Australia—it's the Constitution, mate! The reason the formalities are in place is to require this Senate to carefully and lucidly consider what it is doing. It is an outrage that in the case of this bill—which has been deliberately designed to get around a constitutional decision by the High Court and allow for the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of a small number of people in this country on the basis of whether or not they are citizens, I might add—the government wants to ram it through without observing the formalities. As Senator Hanson-Young has reminded us, this is what happened in the last sitting week: the formalities were not observed. There was no Senate inquiry; no reasonable opportunity for questions to be asked in the committee stages of the legislation; and no reference in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, where this type of legislation would normally be referred. It's a disgrace, colleagues. The parliament is panicking; the parliament is losing its mind. The government has thrown good governance and proper process out the window. And who is going to suffer? Refugees and migrants to this country, because if you're an Australian citizen then none of this stuff can be applied to you. It can only be applied to people who are on a particular class of visa—noncitizens. It's one rule for most of the people in the country and another set of rules for a small group of other people who are in this country. What have we come to, colleagues? Australia used to be a brave, proud and welcoming nation. We were regarded on the international stage as such. And what are we now? We are a craven, timid and cowering nation that is prepared to enact laws without proper process and without proper scrutiny—laws that treat one group of people differently under the law to most other people in this nation. How have we come to here? We have come here on a simple and disgraceful path. We have come here because the far right in politics is prepared to demonise and weaponise refugees. And we have come here because much the Australian media is prepared to provide a megaphone for that weaponisation and demonisation. And we come here because the centre-right party in this place, the Australian Labor Party, are too craven to stand up for human rights and for refugee rights. We have watched this for decades. In this country there is a bipartisan lockstep of cruelty to refugees that runs deeply through the political veins of both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party in this place, and it needs to end. It will end when we start doing our job properly in this place and observe the formalities on legislation such as this. Colleagues, this is no time and no place to throw the formalities out of the window. This is a time and a place for this parliament to carefully consider how it wants to proceed. We need to stop panicking. We need to take a deep breath. We need to calm down, and we need to think our way through this situation. Throwing the formalities out of the window, as Labor is proposing to do, simply means that the knee-jerk, panicked response that we saw in the last sitting week will continue into this sitting week. I predict that, when Labor's preventive detention legislation, which was only announced an hour or so ago by the Minister for Home Affairs in the other place, comes up, whoever the duty minister is will be up here, moving that the formalities be suspended on that legislation as well. It is legislation that means that one group of people in this country will be treated differently under the law than another group of people. It is legislation that is born of the collective panic of the major parties in this place. It is legislation that has come through the fake emergency confected by the Leader of the Opposition, who finds himself unable to resist exploiting fear and division in our community and unable to resist the temptation to demonise migrants and refugees—something he's built his political career on—and a Labor Party that has lost its heart and its backbone and is cravenly capitulating to Mr Dutton's agenda in the most shameful and abject way. The government needs to stop letting Mr Dutton back-seat drive its response to the High Court. The way it could do that is to actually stand up for good governance and for people's rights and calmly explain to the country that, even if some of these people have committed a crime, they've already been punished twice for it—firstly, by the courts and, secondly, by being unlawfully, indefinitely and arbitrarily detained in our immigration system. Now the government wants to punish them for a third time. It's triple jeopardy—triple punishment. Now we have the announcement of a preventive detention regime which is a future crime piece of legislation where you're going to be imprisoned on the basis of something you might do in the future. This is Orwellian stuff. You should never go down this dark and dangerous path, but, if you do want to walk down it, don't walk down it in a panicked haste. That is what the government is proposing to do by moving this evening that formalities on this legislation be denied. It's time that this parliament considered the human rights implications of legislation like this. It's time that the parliament considered exactly the kinds of people who this legislation will apply to. The simple fact is that this is legislation that overwhelmingly will apply to people with black or brown skins. And do you know what that makes it? That makes it racist. That's what it makes it. It's time that the parliament understood that a panicked knee-jerk response to a High Court decision that will actually act to deny freedom and deny liberty to a small group of people in this country, many of whom have committed absolutely no crime whatsoever, is a terrible idea. The way that we would discover collectively that it's such a terrible idea is by observing the formalities that usually apply. 18:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Just so that people understand what's happening here, the motion I've moved is that the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill, which passed the House of Representatives yesterday, maybe proceed without formalities and be read a first time so that we can begin the process of considering that bill in the Senate. I don't know how many times I've moved that type of motion in relation to a bill previously. It is absolutely the usual course of things to move that a bill proceed without formalities. So to suggest, as Senator McKim has, that we're doing something unusual here is completely incorrect. On that basis I move: That the question be now put. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Just to recap: you moved the motion that this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Senator McKim is entitled to have the question split, so the motion he was speaking to was that this bill proceed without formalities. And you've asked for closure on that question. So the question now is that the question be now put. A division is required. We are past 6.30, so the division will be deferred to tomorrow. The debate is adjourned accordingly. Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme No. 2) Bill 2023 69

Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

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

Assent 69 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 69 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—Commonwealth Referrals and Exemptions) Determination 2023, Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—State Referrals) Determination 2023 69 Disallowance 69 18:58 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the following legislative instruments, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed: the Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—Commonwealth Referrals and Exemptions) Determination 2023 [F2023L01172]; and the Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—State Referrals) Determination 2023 [F2023L01173]. I am moving to disallow these instruments relating to compulsory income management. I want to first paint a scenario for you. Imagine the government restricts what you can spend your own money on. Imagine that you're planning your partner's big birthday party and you're heading out to buy some alcohol for the night, and the government steps into your private financial affairs and says: 'I'm sorry, that's more than you're permitted to spend on alcohol. Big Brother says no. It's for your own good.' You can tell them until you're blue in the face that you don't have a problem with alcohol, that it is a special occasion, that your kids are well looked after, but, no. The computer says: 'No, you happen to live in an area where the government's determined that some people have got a problem with alcohol and gambling and looking after their kids, so I'm sorry, that's how it is. One in, all in. Collective punishment. It's for your own good. Government knows best.' That's effectively the situation for the vast majority of people on compulsory income management, particularly First Nations peoples who live in the Northern Territory. But it's worse for them, most likely, than it is for you. Because, if you're not living in poverty, you've probably got some money to fall back on and friends who will help you out. Why them and not you? Racism. It's pure and simple. If you are a First Nations person in the Northern Territory who has been on JobSeeker, youth allowance, parenting payment or special benefit for more than a year, bad luck. You're black, you're living in poverty and, rather than increase the rates of income support to levels that would allow you to be above the poverty line and live a dignified life, rather than funding meaningful employment opportunities, the government wants to punish and to blame you. Most people subject to compulsory income management schemes are First Nations people. Around a third of the total population of First Nations people in the Northern Territory are on compulsory income management. In the evidence given to the many inquiries into income management over the last decade, First Nations people, particularly those in the Northern Territory, have objected to compulsory income management as racially discriminatory. In evidence given to our Senate Community Affairs Committee's inquiry into poverty, Megan Krakouer, the director of the National Suicide Prevention and Trauma Recovery Project, told us: In terms of income management, I've seen how it's been rolled out in Kalgoorlie in so many respects, and it's had a very draconian, disastrous impact on a lot of the families that are forced to use it. The way forward is not about penalising the family. It's not about demonising the families. It's about providing that support, that love, that kindness, that respect and giving opportunities that every single Australian brother and sister is entitled to. Not by any means do I support income management, because I know that there are other ways—and it's called kindness. Mr Damien Griffis, the CEO of the First Peoples Disability Network said: Income management from a disability perspective is completely inappropriate. I can't possibly support it on any grounds. … … … When you place restrictions on people's cash, particularly when they need that cash to access disability aids and supports, that's a major problem, and we've seen that worsen. My personal view, from a disability perspective, is that this has gotten worse since the income management system was established. It's inherently ablest as well. It's not just institutionally racist; we would argue that it's institutionally ableist as well. Yet in June the Labor government pushed through legislation that continued the destructive and punitive system of compulsory income management, and this was a complete betrayal to people on income support and to everyone who believed Labor's election promise that they would end compulsory income management. In opposition, Labor campaigned hard to abolish the cashless debit card and gave a clear signal it would end the BasicsCard as a compulsory scheme. But instead, Labor introduced the SmartCard regime, trapping more than 20,000 people under compulsory income management. I have said it before and I will say it again: Labor's SmartCard is just the cashless debit card with a different name and a different colour. The SmartCard regime is not simply a matter of improving technology, as Labor claim. It is a sneaky and insidious framework that significantly expanded the minister's power to roll out compulsory income management to new areas and effectively allowed the new cashless debit card to apply nationally. When these measures were introduced to the parliament for the SmartCard, the Greens moved to disallow this rotten regime, but, not surprisingly, the two parties ganged up and voted us down. So today we are moving to disallow two of the legislative instrument Labor has introduced that seek to perpetuate the punitive system of compulsory income management. Under this system, certain groups of people on income support can be forcibly placed on the BasicsCard and have 50 to 70 per cent of the income quarantined. This can happen to you if you live in a region where income support is currently in place, if you have been on a social security payment for over a year, if you are a young person on income support for an extended period or if you are assessed as vulnerable due to experiencing things like financial hardship, domestic violence or risk of homelessness. You can also be placed on the BasicsCard and have your income support payments forcibly quarantined if a child protection worker refers you to the program. This is a horrifying and paternalistic system. The BasicsCard was one of the many racist and discriminatory policies that the Howard government introduced in 2007 as part of the Northern Territory Intervention. Labor then expanded this program in 2010 to a wider cohort of income support recipients. Today the Department of Social Services reports that there are approximately 24,000 people on the BasicsCard in Australia, with the vast majority of these people living in the Northern Territory. The legislative instruments that the Greens are seeking to disallow tonight enable the operation of these measures under Labor's SmartCard regime. What that means is that people on the BasicsCard don't have the option to exit compulsory income management; they only have the option to move over to the new SmartCard system or stay put. These instruments also allow for the government to force new income support recipients onto the SmartCard if they are assessed as fitting the discriminatory criteria. Of the 22,000 people on income management in the Northern Territory, only approximately eight per cent have volunteered to be on the program. Most have been forcibly placed on the program because they qualify as long-term welfare payment recipients and they live in the Northern Territory. Evidently, the existing income management regime is not voluntary, and neither will Labor's new SmartCard regime be. This was made crystal clear in a recent Scrutiny report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. With regard to the instruments we're debating today, they concluded: While facilitating the operation of a regime that provides participants with access to superior technology and improved banking functions is, in itself, an important aim, it remains unclear why this enhanced income management regime must operate on a mandatory basis (or why legislation is required to improve this technology). The committee also noted: For many years the committee has raised concerns regarding the compatibility of compulsory income management with multiple human rights. In particular, by subjecting an individual to mandatory income management and restricting how they may spend a portion of their social security payment, the measure limits the rights to social security and a private life, and possibly the right to an adequate standard of living. Due to the disproportionate impact on certain groups with protected attributes, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and children, the measures also engage and limit the right to equality and non-discrimination and the rights of the child. Let me be clear: compulsory income management in any form, from the cashless debit card to the SmartCard or the BasicsCard, does not work. As the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted, it only restricts people's rights. But this isn't a new finding. For the nearly two decades since the introduction of the BasicsCard in Australia, in 2007, we've heard evidence from parliamentary inquiries, the Australian Human Rights Commission, researchers and community organisations about how compulsory income management violates human rights. Compulsory income management demonises people on income support. It stops people from accessing the support they need. It removes their dignity and independence. Ultimately, it punishes people for seeking help from our income support system. We've heard account after account of the real harm these programs cause. In addition to the evidence from a First Nations perspective that I shared earlier, other people have shared their experience in recent inquiries into compulsory income management. One person on compulsory income management explained: It has stopped me paying rent on time to a private landlord. I could not purchase second-hand items which I needed when my fridge and washing machine died. I felt very alone and socially an outcast. I didn't have enough cash to buy cheap market goods. Other people have echoed feelings of social isolation while in the regime. One person said they are 'not able to rent, not able to go out and meet people' and that it's 'not good for young people'. Another expressed how limiting having their income forcibly quarantined can be. They said: Coming from an abusive past relationship I would have less access to flee as I would not have options that don't require cash. I could not hide from my partner to set myself up to flee. No life. This is horrifying. Our social security system is supposed to provide people with a robust safety net. It's supposed to support people when they need it most, not restrict them in accessing basic needs like shelter or food or stop them finding social connections. Most importantly, it should never be an additional barrier to someone leaving an abusive relationship. Yet under compulsory income management this is the reality. This is the reality that Labor are forcing upon 20,000-plus people as they wilfully march forward with the SmartCard regime. Labor made a clear commitment to end compulsory income management before the election. In April 2022, when asked about the BasicsCard, Labor's social services spokesperson Linda Burney said that they believed this regime should be voluntary. She said, 'If people want to be on these sorts of income management, then that's their decision.' We agree, Minister. If people find income management useful, they should have the option to enter into it voluntarily, but they should not be compelled to be on it. Labor also promised to leave no-one behind. Yet, since Labor has been in power, they have consistently made the decision to keep people who are on JobSeeker and other payments well below the poverty line. Labor cannot be trusted with our social security system. They have broken promise after promise. We saw in the recent budget hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the ultrawealthy, yet they only managed to find $4 a day for people on JobSeeker and other payments. Four dollars a day can't even buy a coffee, let alone pay for rent or groceries or medical expenses. So, as we debate this disallowance and the impact of compulsory income management on people relying on income support, this is a stark reminder that poverty is a political choice, and right now the Labor government is choosing to keep the millions of Australians who are on income support well below the poverty line. They are choosing to force over 20,000 people into the destructive practice of compulsory income management. Labor may argue that this disallowance shouldn't proceed because it has unintended consequences. They'll say it will prevent people from accessing the so-called improved technology of the SmartCard. Let me remind Labor of the scathing assessment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights of these instruments. It remains unclear why income management must operate on a mandatory basis or why legislation is required at all to improve this technology. So, Labor, what is your reason? Why are you choosing to perpetuate the destructive and racist policies of compulsory income management? If you actually listened to the people who are affected by these policies, if you paid attention to what First Nations groups and people with direct experience are saying, you would fund services that actually work instead of continuing to spend taxpayer money on the rollout of the discriminatory SmartCard regime. You could substantially increase your investment in social and affordable housing, and properly fund financial counselling services and First Nations controlled community organisations. You could raise the rate of income support to above the poverty line for everyone who needs it. Until Labor comes to parliament with a bill that introduces income management that is genuinely voluntary, the Greens will not stop fighting until all compulsory income management is abolished. We will not allow the government to continue to force people on these punitive and damaging programs under the guise of another name. We will continue to disrupt, and to attempt to disallow, any harmful legislative instruments under Labor's SmartCard regime, and we will keep fighting until our social security system actually supports the people who need it. I move: That the following legislative instruments, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed: (a) the Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—Commonwealth Referrals and Exemptions) Determination 2023 [F2023L01172]; and (b) the Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—State Referrals) Determination 2023 [F2023L01173]. 19:13 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I too want to make a contribution in relation to this disallowance motion moved by Senator Rice. I associate myself with the extensive commentary that Senator Rice has just made. I too have spoken on this particular issue many times in this chamber, and I express again the disappointment at the broken promises. Labor made very clear promises to people. We were all campaigning in the lead-up to the election last year, and Labor very clearly told people, 'We will end the BasicsCard as a compulsory scheme.' They were their words. In September 2022, just four months later, post election, Labor repealed the cashless debit card but did not abolish the BasicsCard, as they had said they would. There are many pieces of commentary about the SmartCard or about the BasicsCard. It doesn't matter what you call it; it's still a compulsory income management regime. It is racist, as Senator Rice has already alluded to. It's basically discriminatory and racist. It comes from the Howard era, 2007. It's written in history in the Northern Territory intervention. They couldn't wait. They were wringing their hands together to expand this program to get a wider cohort of income support recipients. As Senator Rice said, the majority of the recipients in the data from the Department of Social Services talk about those 24½ thousand people on the BasicsCard in Australia and the vast majority of those living in the Northern Territory being forcibly placed on the BasicsCard. I really like Senator Rice's example of planning a birthday party for a loved one and not being able to spend that money on what you need and being told that 50 to 70 per cent of your income will be quarantined. How, in 2023, is that being imposed on people? I know the stories of my grandparents, who lived through the 1905 act of segregation and the regime of having to seek rations in this country, and yet we still have people who, by stealth, this policy still exists. Because Labor promised they would get rid of it. Since 4 September this year, they've been talking about improved technology of the SmartCard, where people can stay on the BasicsCard. That's like saying, 'Would you like to go to jail or would you like to live in a cage?' What sort of choice is that? Like, really? We're asking people who really don't have a choice to easily exit from income management altogether. We haven't given them a pathway. Let's be real about that. We haven't set that up. There is no system. As Senator Rice has already said, there are no financial counselling services and no assistance with small businesses. People are running around talking about commercialisation and economic development in the Northern Territory. Are they talking to the black people? Probably not. They're talking to their mates in industry and big business. They're not worried about helping our people get off income support and giving them pathways to do that. If you haven't forgotten over there, Labor, it's one of your Closing the Gap targets, which is something you're not doing anything in. These measures we are seeking to disallow enable the operation of what people call a vulnerable welfare payment recipient, a disengaged youth, a long-term welfare payment recipient, a child under the child protection system or supporting people at risk. Well, aren't they patronising terms? Where's the self-determination? Where is allowing us to be part of the decision-making? Where's the preservation and recognition of the trauma and loss that we've experienced in this country? There's none in any of that wording because all of these measures are already operational under that income management regime that Labor still continue to bandy around. These measures also involve placing an income support recipient onto a SmartCard, and Senator Rice is right in saying that, if you live in a particular geographical location, you will be scooped up in the net. Right? It's a postcode lottery. That's what it is. What we know is that they've done this on purpose. There's the whole of the NT, the APY Lands, Playford in South Australia, Ngaanyatjarra Lands in my home state of Western Australia and the Kimberley, Logan, Rockhampton, Livingstone in Queensland and Bankstown in New South Wales—all low socioeconomic areas with a high population of Indigenous people. By stealth, this government continues to roll out this regime. There have been numerous studies, but there is one from 2021 that talks about income management in the Northern Territory during the intervention and the ability for it to reduce children's school attendance during the first five months of its operation on an average of 4.7 per cent in remote communities. People come into this chamber and they are talking about the heightened emergency, just as Senator McKim was talking about, in the frame of migration. We are talking about the same thing being done to our people for generations in this country. We have to send the army into the Northern Territory to help these people! We have to send more police to help these people! That's the way people talk about us in this chamber. It's actually so patronising and disrespectful that we have no agency in that. We absolutely don't have any. Sometimes people need to check themselves because we don't need you to say that about us. We don't need you to do that to us in the way that you form your legislation and policies in this country. Countless reports show that income management doesn't help; it actually hinders. People being unable to get their kids to school is just one example, and I think it's significant. There is little evidence to support anything except abolishing this compulsory income management regime. I want to share with you some very quick quotes in relation to First Nations people. As Senator Rice said, people right across this country people have given evidence, people like Megan Krakouer, from my home state of Western Australia, who runs First Nations trauma and suicide recovery and who works at the grassroots level with families and communities impacted by such traumatic life events. Whole families are affected by that. On top of that, to put an income support regime, putting management over income, means they are left living under the poverty line. As Senator Rice said, there are things that this government could do. The APO in the Northern Territory reminds the government of their support for the repeal of the Cashless Debit Card. While this has allowed some participants to exit income management or voluntarily opt out into income management, this isn't the case for the majority of people. That means that people don't want that. They want something different. The NT participants who remain on compulsory income management have suffered, unfortunately, the longest under this regime, a regime this government continues to talk a big game about—now they're going to talk about consultation. They stated that their long-term aim is to have it on a voluntary basis, but that's not what they're doing. It's like saying, 'Look over here, people!' while legislating something completely different in stealth mode, giving powers for the extension of income management while some of the most vulnerable people in Australia are part of this regime. This bill continues that trend—there's no mistaking that. In particular, it becomes a permanent feature of the social services in Australia without adequate consultation—which this government said they would do and which they keep rolling out at each press release and press conference, telling people that they want to do. I don't know about you, but I feel like we're being gaslighted every time we read a new media release from ministers who continue to talk about what the legislative impacts of these bills are. They talk about the opposite of what they committed to when they were sitting across the other side in opposition in this place. In their pre-election statements, they said this should only occur on a voluntary basis. The Central Land Council asked, 'How many times do we have to say it until the government listens to our voices?' The irony of that statement! Here we were on the back of a referendum where this government told everyone that they were listening to people's voices. Since income management was introduced in 2007, as part of the Commonwealth government's Intervention into the Northern Territory, we have said no. The people have said no. A different card, a different colour, but it's all for the same purpose: to control our lives. We are not guinea pigs. The Central Land Council calls for the government to end all forms of compulsory income management now. The last quote that I'll share comes from the Arnhem Land Progress Association: Compulsory income management was imposed on our member communities in 2007 as part of the NT Intervention— as the emergency response was known— When it was forced upon our members they were subject to the discriminatory and false assumption that they were all— and this is the way they were talked about— alcoholics, family violence offenders and problem gamblers. ALPA's chair, Reverend Dr Gondarra OAM, has stated that the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians depends on them having self-agency, choice and control over their lives. ALPA's board believes that, regardless of what design a future income management program takes, participation in this program must be voluntary. That is a non-negotiable. It is a non-negotiable for black people in this country to not feel discriminated against—to have equality. We're a signatory. We've just had a whole conversation, a whole debate a few hours ago, about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, yet self-determination; free, prior and informed consent; equality and non-discrimination; and being part of the decision-making is actually something that has not been committed to through this process, because no-one cares. Those people who are out in the bush—don't worry about them. Out of sight, out of mind. They're not going to be the people campaigning, sending letters to your offices by e-mail or calling your offices and demanding that you don't pass this. Do you know why? Because that's not who we are. We have an expectation in our culture that you'll come and sit in dirt and talk to us about whatever you're crafting in your plan. But you don't do that, and that's disrespectful to us as the First Peoples of this country—and it is a constant thread in this place. It is so constant. People do not care about the impact. The impact will be not just in the here and now but for future generations of our people that are going to be impacted by this legislation. Since 2007, we've been fighting this fight. We, over here at the Greens, alongside Senator Rice, will keep fighting for change. 19:28 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The government opposes Senator Rice's motion to disallow the following instruments under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999: the Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—Commonwealth Referrals and Exemptions) Determination 2023, and the Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime—State Referrals) Determination 2023. These instruments operationalise the changes to enhanced income management introduced on 4 September 2023, following the commencement of the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Act 2023, the income management reform act. Disallowing the instruments would mean that states and Commonwealth social workers would be unable to refer people to the program. People are only referred where a social worker considers that it would benefit the people to be on the program. Not allowing referrals from state and territory authorities would undermine the role of the states and territories in supporting communities in their jurisdictions—specifically, in the area of child protection or the misuse of alcohol. Disallowing the instrument would also reduce access to exemptions for some participants— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Albanese Government 74 19:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania by leave—before I begin my adjournment contribution, I inform the chamber that I withdraw some comments I made earlier that were deemed unparliamentary under the standing orders earlier today. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Polley. Senator POLLEY e5x It has been another big year of major reform—18 months, in fact, of historic reforms to address the cost of living and to ease pressure on family budgets. The Albanese government is rightly proud of these achievements and its commitment to collectivism, progress and shared prosperity. While those opposite had almost 10 years in government and achieved very, very little, we had a plan coming into government. We are proudly implementing this plan because we know that our plan will directly impact on and make Australians' lives better. When we are in government, we choose to be a government that will deliver for the Australian people. We're not here for the power, as are those on the other side. We understand that's in their DNA; they believe that they're the rightful government in this country. But when we get into government, we want to ensure that we change Australians' lives for the better. We acknowledge that there are rising cost-of-living pressures on budgets around Australia. I know only too well the impact that it's having on Tasmanians—the cost of food, petrol, mortgages and rents. But the Albanese government is 100 per cent focused on addressing those cost hikes and ensuring that the economy stabilises sooner rather than later through our 10-point plan to deliver around $23 billion of support targeted to where it's needed most. There are things like electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines, boosting income support payments, fee-free TAFE training, building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave, getting more people into jobs and getting wages moving again. The Reserve Bank will continue to make independent decisions about interest rates, while the government will curb inflation challenges through a combination of budget restraints, investment to lift capacity in our economy and targeted cost-of-living relief to help ease inflation within our economy. As a government, we have to be prepared to take the hard decisions. But the federal Labor government has always been driven consistently by nation-building reforms—such as Medicare, compulsory superannuation, the NDIS and paid domestic and family violence leave. We have continued that journey in this term of government thus far. As Chifley said, it's about 'bringing something better to the people'—the light on the hill. Improving the lives of Australians is alive and well in this country. We want to make our country fairer and stronger so that every Australian has the opportunity to do well in life, to live their lives to the fullest potential. We want them to have access to better education and access to a doctor when they need one. I know the benefits that Tasmanians have had through the implementation of three Medicare Urgent Care Clinics already. Those are operational, and the fourth one has just been announced. We're doing that because it shouldn't be your credit card that dictates when you can see a GP, it should be your Medicare card. That's why Labor will always protect Medicare and it's why we've invested in our GPs and invested to ensure that there are cheaper medications. We took the strong and needed decision to have 60-day dispensing so that people can get their medications when they need them and it's more affordable for them. We've invested in childcare reforms, saving people in my home state of Tasmania $2,000 a year; energy bill relief; and a transition to invest in renewable energy. These are the commitments that will see real change in this country. We're investing in 30,000 social and affordable homes, greater investment in Australian manufacturing and the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission—a big ticket item that Australians want to see. But what did those people on the other side do when they were in government for 10 years? Nothing. Nothing at all. I remember when the Prime Minister was first elected. Mr Anthony Albanese gave a speech when he became Prime Minister. He said that, at the end of the day, when he leaves this place and he is sitting on the porch, he wants to reflect and be able to say he didn't leave anything on the field. That's the motivation, and that's the commitment that the Albanese Labor government makes to all Australians. We will do our best for you each and every day because that's what we believe we're here to do. (Time expired) Doig, Brevet Sergeant Jason, Stevens, Mr Charles Hinchcliffe 75 19:36 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia On Friday 17 November, our home state of South Australia woke to the news that police officer Brevet Sergeant Jason Doig, after 34 years of service keeping our community safe, had died in the line of service. He was the first police officer killed by gunfire in South Australia in almost 40 years. As South Australia grieved and dealt with the shock of this action and this loss, our state was then to be thrown into yet more grief and yet more tragedy, with the death in the following 24 hours of South Australia Police Commissioner Grant Stevens's son, Charlie. Like Jason Doig, it is so unfair and so tragic. Yet, out of the tragedy, Commissioner Grant Stevens again showed the grace, the leadership and the courage to ensure that the tragedy his family was dealing with was also put into the context of the tragedy of all road deaths, by issuing the most powerful of statements, which I will read into the Hansard now: I am writing this sitting in a bedroom with dirty clothes on the floor, an unmade bed, six drinking glasses lined up on the bedside table, an empty KFC box next to the glasses, wardrobe doors left open and a row of skateboards leaning on the wall—it is a mess and it's perfect. This is where 101 lived. 101 arrived on the 28th of April 2005 and changed our lives forever. The last of five—he was different. Cheeky, intense and funny—a loveable ratbag from the moment he could talk. He was as frustrating as hell, but he was also the kid who would look after others, befriend the lonely and help those who were struggling. Intensity shone through as 101 committed to each new passion—Lego, BBL, scooters, footy, cricket, basketball, surfing, downhilling, Fortnite and his skateboard—it was all or nothing and it was always all. 101 hated cheese because his brother did. He was a master of the airfryer, the nutrabullet and the steamer. He loved his mum's curried sausages but he didn't know where the dishwasher was. His favourite pastime was pushing mum's buttons—although a different name on his birth certificate, "f** off Charlie" was what you would hear most in our house, followed closely by "put a shirt on" and "take your hat off at the table". 101 loved footy. He loved the Cats, he played 100 games for the Mitcham Hawks, then the Jets, the Goody Saints, the Camels and Westies, he just wanted to play and be part of the team. It was 101 who taught us you can't shower unless you have your bluetooth speaker fully cranked so mum and dad can't hear themselves talk in the kitchen. 101 never wanted for soap, shampoo or shavers—someone else in the house always has it—even a used towel! His enthusiasm for school saw no bounds—except start time and school work. But his enthusiasm for his family and his mates was real. 101 has a circle of friends the rest of us could only dream about. He loved his mates and they loved him. His friends' parents liked having 101 in their homes. He was mates with his brother's mates. Living with him meant waking up on weekends to four or five extra bodies in spare beds and on couches. It meant the family garage being transformed into a man cave where things parents did not know about (or probably permit) could happen. The only time we saw 101 truly angry was when he was forced to cut his precious hair for his sister's wedding in 2021. He never went back to a hairdresser again. Being 101's alarm clock was a role his mum and I took up when he left school and started his apprenticeship. "Get up mate, get up mate", "mate, get up", "are you not going to work today?", followed by "drive safely and don't speed" becoming the morning mantra. 101 thrived at work, he loved working, loved his job and he idolised his boss. It meant he had money for TA Tuesdays and Wednesday Wings at the Feathers. 101 was adored by the sausage dogs Gracie and Zoe, who would sneak into his bed at night. On a good day, we would be lucky to see 101 for half an hour between him getting home from work and heading out with his mates, but it was enough. 101 is Charles Stevens—Charlie, Charlie Boy, Chas, Links, Steve. You lived life and gave so much to so many. You were a force of nature and we will never forget your beautiful cheeky, disarming smile. Son, brother, grandson, uncle, nephew, cousin, friend, workmate, teammate. So much more than just a number on a tragic tally. Grant Stevens released this statement, with '101' being the 101st death by road accident in South Australia this year. One hundred families are feeling the same pain that he and his wife, Emma—a truly amazing couple and wonderful people—their children Sophie, Dylan, Josh and Tom, Charlie's mates, their mates' parents and families, the Mercedes College community, his workmates and, of course, so many other in similar circumstances feel. To all of them—to the family of Jason Doig and all those in the South Australian police community—we extend our commiserations and our heartfelt thanks for your service. We salute them in their time of grief. Health Care: Multiple Sclerosis 76 19:41 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania It's very hard to follow that. Tonight I'm excited, though, to speak about the opening of the MS Plus Wellbeing Centre in Hobart earlier this year. As a Tasmanian senator and co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Multiple Sclerosis, I was honoured to be invited by MS Plus to open Hobart's wellbeing centre. This is the second such facility MS Plus has opened in Australia, which is fitting because Greater Hobart has the highest incidence of MS in Australia. The centre will provide invaluable access to services for Tasmanians living with multiple sclerosis and neurological conditions, enhancing their lives and supporting their family members and carers. My eldest brother, Peter, was diagnosed with MS in 1979 when he was a young man in his early 20s. Through my family's experience and my parliamentary work involving MS, I understand just how important facilities like the Hobart wellbeing centre are. MS Plus wellbeing centres help people to keep doing what is important to them. That might be to keep working for longer, improve their strength and movement, stay connected within their communities or simply ensure they're feeling their best. These goals are met through individual exercise physiology, physiotherapy and dietary programs, as well as employment and workplace support, health professional coordination and peer support. The best bit is that many of those appointments can now be accessed at the centre's one comfortable and central location in the middle of Hobart. MS Plus wellbeing centres are really like a one-stop shop for neurological support. Hobart resident Meg Denham has lived with MS for more than a decade, and she shared her experiences at the opening event on what a difference the centre has already made to her. 'It's really nice to have a place that's set up for neurological things,' Meg told us, highlighting the specialist equipment like hand bikes and equipment that she could use while sitting in her wheelchair. 'The old idea that you should just rest and do nothing is no good at all. Moving is the thing that keeps you going,' she said. And she's right. But it's not just about keeping moving for Meg. She also spoke about the benefit of having access to multiple health professionals at the one site. Meg said she feels like she's part of a community that's 'always looking out for you' and that 'you can talk to'. They're someone to be a shoulder to lean on when things are getting tough and also someone to laugh about the silly things that happen, because all those things happen with MS. In addition, the Hobart wellbeing centre complements the wonderful work of the Menzies Institute for Medical Research through its Multiple Sclerosis Research Flagship program. The MS flagship was created in 2016 as an integrated research pipeline, bringing together experts in scientific discovery, clinical understanding, public health, health economics and implementation research. In just seven years, this collaboration has already amplified MS research at Menzies and beyond, with research building a better understanding of this condition both here and around the world. This knowledge has been shared widely already through Menzies Institute's Understanding Multiple Sclerosis massive open online course, better known as a MOOC. I can't wait to see what the next few years bring. Some of this research about MS prevalence was published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry in 2022. Authors Steve Simpson-Yap, Leigh Blizzard, Ingrid van der Mei and Bruce Taylor, from the MS flagship, and Robert Atvars, from the Royal Hobart Hospital, found that those with MS were living longer and there had been a reduction in deaths, which could be attributed to improved MS health care and the implementation of disease-modifying therapies. However, they also found that the greater Hobart region continued to record the highest prevalence and incidence rates of MS in Australia. More cases are being diagnosed now, with the article highlighting MS risk factors such as reduced sun exposure, which can lead to vitamin D deficiency; higher rates of obesity; and smoking or exposure to cigarette smoke. Tasmania's prevalence of MS is around double that of Queensland, which correlates with our knowledge that MS cases increase the further people live from the equator. This risk factor impacts thousands of Tasmanians and has far-reaching impacts for our state's health and allied services. But, with research like that being undertaken by MS flagship, we're gaining a better understanding about this condition all the time. When Peter was diagnosed with MS almost 45 years ago there were no treatment options. He could simply learn to live with MS and manage the condition. Now we have immunotherapies which reduce disease activity in the central nervous system and lessen the frequency and severity of relapses for people with MS and we have services like the MS Plus Wellbeing Centre which help those with MS live a stronger, healthier and happier life. Animals Australia 77 19:46 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia There are few in this place or the other place who you would sooner have in the political trenches at your side than my good very good friend and colleague Rick Wilson MP, the member for O'Connor. Earlier this week, Mr Wilson and I co-authored a letter to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Murray Watt, concerning the relationship between Animals Australia and the Department of Agriculture—a relationship that should not go on for one day more. As I've said in this place before—and as the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson, has said in the other place—Animals Australia is not an organisation that deserves a place in civil society and is certainly not one that deserves a special place at the table with our Department of Agriculture. In this letter, we call on the minister to sever ties between his department and Animals Australia and, in particular, to immediately remove them from the Livestock Export Animal Welfare Advisory Group. On the public record now, from multiple media outlets, the evidence is clear. Animals Australia paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to a relatively poor deckhand on the Awassi Express—someone who's paid on average about US$500 per month. They paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the procurement of footage of animals suffering in order to raise money Australia in order to procure new footage of animals suffering. This is not an organisation that should have a privileged place at the table with the Department of Agriculture. Let me read some of the evidence that's now in the public domain. I'll read from the letter that the member for O'Connor and I sent to the minister: 'Animals Australia paid over $100,000 to Faisal Ullah before, during and after his time on the Awassi Express. This money provides a considerable financial incentive to produce footage of animals suffering, especially when the wage for a deckhand is less than US$500 per month on these vessels. Emails show Animals Australia spending significant time and money grooming Faisal Ullah for his role and the type of footage of animals suffering that was required. At one point, Faisal Ullah suggested that ventilation to the sheep could be closed in order to increase animal suffering. Allegedly sheep housed in the areas of the Awassi Express controlled by Faisal Ullah suffered the highest mortality rates, and the footage he took showed clear evidence of carer neglect.' A former shipmate of Faisal Ullah, in a sworn affidavit, supported the allegations of cash for cruelty, emphasising the following points: 'Many of the issues shown in the footage were Faisal's responsibility, such as empty water troughs, sheep crowded into the corner of a pen, pens that were filthy and carcasses being allowed to rot.' He went on to say in the sworn affidavit: 'I cannot prove that Faisal shut off the ventilation systems on the ship, but it is my suspicion that is what he did.' The group procured the footage in this despicable way. This is the footage from which the minister and the Labor government have sourced their policy to shut down the live export trade, which will affect farmers in my home state of Western Australia. They don't listen to the farmers. Minister Watt and his department don't listen to the farmers, but they listen to Animals Australia—a group that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to procure footage of animals suffering. And guess what? If you're willing to pay a relatively poor deckhand from a developing country hundreds of thousands of dollars, you will get footage of animals suffering. That relationship needs to stop today. (Time expired.) World Health Organization 77 19:51 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia The people of the world are waking up to the World Health Organization. They are waking up to this unelected globalist body—an organisation seeking to accrue power at the expense of our medical and health sovereignty. During COVID, the WHO advocated for lockdowns and vaccine mandates, which of course turned out to be disastrous, yet they have never taken responsibility for the damage brought by these policies. The WHO also failed to properly investigate the actions of the Chinese government in early 2020. They were uncritical of big pharma, and they exaggerated the deadliness of this virus, yet the Labor government in this country wants to afford the WHO more authority over our public health decision-making, not less. I've spoken many times in this place about Australia's need to withdraw from the World Health Organization, and I've spoken many times about the need for Australia to vote against the World Health Organization's amendment to the International Health Regulations and the proposed pandemic treaty. If passed, these instruments will pave the way for these unelected global health bureaucrats to have unreasonable control over our public health policies and for there to be even less scrutiny of pharmaceutical companies. The proposed instruments will afford the WHO more authority regarding regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation and disinformation and false news. Take my word for it. This proposal has authoritarian intent. Fortunately for the citizens of Estonia, New Zealand, Slovenia and Slovakia, their leaders have listened to their people and notified the World Health Assembly that they intend to reject the pandemic treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations. The new Prime Minister of Slovakia recently announced that Slovakia would uphold the independence of his nation when it comes to making decisions about public health emergencies. Regarding the 2020 to 2021 period, he said that the pandemic treaty would transfer health powers from the national ministries of health of the signatory countries to the World Health Organization and that the WHO would then acquire draconian decision-making powers. The leaders of these nations are resisting this coup d'etat, so why isn't Australia? My office has been inundated with calls and emails from people who don't want their government to sign them or their children up for a future controlled by the whims of unelected global health bureaucrats. I'm calling on the Labor government to take seriously the concerns of those Australian citizens who are rightly sceptical of the WHO. The WHO's job during the pandemic was to provide unchecked, sensible health advice. It failed, and we ought to reconsider our relationship with this entity rather than unquestioningly yielding authority to it. The harm caused by the incoherent pandemic restrictions may, ultimately, be swept under the rug, but people won't forget the experience and the certainly don't want the WHO making decisions for them. Australia should reject the pandemic treaty. Australia should reject these amendments to the International Health Regulations and immediately withdraw from the World Health Organization. Tasmania: Health Care 78 19:55 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Small GP clinics in rural and regional areas of Tassie are collapsing at a rapid pace. In the last few years, we've lost clinics at Brighton, Evandale, Westbury and East Devonport, and this year we came close to losing clinics in Bridgewater and St Marys. Clinics are shutting down not only because we don't have enough GPs to go around but also because they are increasingly for-profit businesses owned by venture capital companies. They need these clinics to make money and, if they don't, corporations pull the plug, then the community is left without access to health care and no-one has any idea on how to fix it. That's what almost happened with Green Point Medical Centre in Bridgewater. When the news first broke that Green Point would shut down, politicians descended on the site like it was election time in a marginal seat. The state pollies said the federal government need to exit. The federal pollies said it wasn't up to one government and we all need to work together. Not one of these pollies put a solid idea on the table about how to actually fix the problem. They just hoped somebody would step in to fill the void. We got lucky that a provider did step in. But what if they didn't? We need a solution for the next town whose GP clinic closes and the one after that, a solution that actually fixes what is causing the problem. What is causing the problem is actually simple; it is money. Doctors working in corporate clinics serve two masters—their patients and their investors and not necessarily in that order. If they spend too much time looking after patients at or below cost, they risk losing their investor's money, which puts the clinic at risk. If they look after the investor instead of the patient, the patient doesn't get the quality care they might need. We don't want to see general practice run like this. It shouldn't be up to foreign investors to decide who in Australia gets primary care. I know what it is like to not be able to afford health care when you need it. I went to the same family clinic in Ulvie all my life. Then, when my kids were toddlers, the clinic suddenly stopped bulk-billing for kids. I understood that it was a business decision and they did what they had to do to keep everything running, but I was a young mum. I couldn't afford to pay for the appointments. When your kids at that age, three or four years old, they have to go to the doctors a lot. The costs add up really quickly. I was lucky I was able to switch to a different clinic in Ulvie but I'm not sure what I would have done if there wasn't another clinic to go to. If you are in a rural part of Tasmania, you don't have the option. If your clinic closes, there aren't others around. The next closest clinic is probably an hour away, so hopefully you have a car to get there because you can't rely on public transport. The ones that are kind of close to your town are likely not taking on new patients. People in regional areas rely on these clinics and the corporations running them are about profit, not people. Because corporations are getting wary of investing in regional areas, we are leaving to private clinics to fill the gap but we know there aren't enough GPs to do this. In private clinics where the GPs take on the financial responsibility of the practice, it is in addition to their day job of, well, being a GP. That's why the federal government has a role to play here. If a regional area is at risk of losing their clinic because corporate investors are pulling the pin, the federal government should step in to run the clinic—take over the lease, pay the staff, keep the doors open—and put the clinic up for sale at the same time. If someone comes and buys it—great—the federal government steps out. If nobody buys it, the federal government runs the clinic until someone else sets up a new one in the region. It isn't designed to be a permanent fix; it is a temporary measure to make sure the community has health care, no matter what the market says. I have no issue with private investors backing clinics but I do have an issue with private investors deciding whether you can see a doctor next month. Everybody should have access to health care, no matter where they live. I don't want to be another politician pointing out the bad things with no real solution to offer, so this is what I am putting on the table before any other GP clinics are at risk shutting down. Far North Queensland Pearls, Challenge of the Nations Netball Tournament, African Cup of Nations 79 19:59 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise today to speak about three wonderful sporting events that occurred recently in my home state of Queensland. They were more than just sporting events; they were events that lifted up young people and gave young people outstanding opportunities to make the most of their potential. I want to speak about these events and I want to specially recognise all of the volunteers who made these three wonderful events happen. I note that the third event I'm going to speak to is still in progress, so there's still an opportunity for Queenslanders to visit the third event. In the first instance I want to talk about the Far North Queensland Pearls, an under-17s young women's rugby league team. This under-17s young women's rugby league team recently participated in the Arthur Beetson Foundation and Deadly Choices Murri Carnival held in Redcliffe, Queensland. They performed outstandingly. Senator McGrath, my colleague who is here, knows the distance between Cairns and Brisbane because he has travelled it many times. Notwithstanding the fact that they had to travel by bus for 27 hours to get to this rugby league tournament, they performed magnificently. They performed so well that five of the players were actually recognised by being selected for the Queensland under-17s Indigenous women's rugby league team. Those five players are: fullback Denisha Chilman-Gibuma, centre Aneice Mitchell, hooker and dummy half Loti Sagigi, second rower Wazana Thaiday and front rower Rashae King. I also give a special shout-out to their coach, Benjamin Mitchell, and his wife, Aunty Marcia Mitchell. Not only was Ben the coach; he and his wife got their bus licences so that they could drive the teams down by bus from Cairns to the football tournament. How good is that? Ben said about these fantastic young women: These remarkable young women have overcome challenges and worked diligently to reach this point in their sporting careers. The opportunity to play for the FNQ Pearls and now represent QLD is a dream come true for them, and they are genuinely excited and grateful for this incredible opportunity. I also recognise Grandad Robert and Grandma Gloria Ware, who provided invaluable pastoral care and cultural support. Finally, I recognise that not only did Uncle Ben Mitchell drive the bus and coach the team but also he has been selected to be the coach of the Queensland team. Well done, Benjamin Mitchell. You're an absolute inspiration. The second event I want to talk about is the Challenge of the Nations Netball Tournament. I was very fortunate on Saturday to spend some time at this netball tournament and watch some of the amazing games. At this netball tournament nine nations were represented in their wonderful colours and their beautiful smiles over two weekends. There were teams representing Indigenous Australia, Tonga, Samoa, Niue, Cook Islands, Fiji, PNG, Maoris and Tahiti. In all, 102 teams were represented, with 968 players. I give a special shout-out to the president of the host organisation, Pare Kae, and also to the wonderful events manager, Jean Teamoke-Teao, who is just a wonderful lady. She does such a great job running this tournament. Finally, I note that in 2024 it will be the 10th anniversary of this amazing tournament. I look forward to attending this great event next year. Apparently a lot of past players are going to come along and either participate or spectate and give their support to the event. I note this year it was held in Ipswich. I give a special shout-out to Nicole Virtue, President of the Ipswich Netball Association, and her team for being such wonderful hosts. I think this tournament has found a new home. I look forward to supporting it well into the future. The third event is the African Cup of Nations. This football event is still occurring. Last weekend was the second weekend. The semifinals, followed by the grand finals, will be on the weekend coming. This event is convened by the Queensland African Communities Council. I give a special callout to those teams and coaches who have made the semifinals, and I congratulate them all. The female teams and coaches are: Sudan, under the teaching of Makoi Makuel; South Sudan under Mabor Mabor; the Democratic Republic of the Congo under Gad Simba Leon Nunda; and Liberia under Sheik Abdul Bah. Again, excuse me for my pronunciation. The male teams and coaches are: Burundi, under the wonderful coaching of Mossi Jaffary; South Sudan under Denis Bosco; the Democratic Republic of the Congo under Kado Aoci; and Somalia under Asad Hassan. I had an opportunity to give a pre-match inspirational talk to the Congolese team before they took the field, and I did my best to inspire them, mainly by reference to their wonderful coach, Kado, who is a fantastic young Australian and an outstanding football player in his own right. He's such a great mentor to the young Australian-Congolese members of this team. He's a real inspiration—I can't speak highly enough of Kado. I did promise that if they won the match, for which I gave them an inspirational talk, I would give them a special callout. They did win the match. I said I'd also give a callout to the best player on the side in that match, and Patient Lungwe was the best player in that match. A special callout to you, Patient. We're expecting this Australian-Congolese team to do really well next weekend. This year, this football tournament is being hosted by a wonderful community sporting organisation in my home state of Queensland, located in Goodna in the greater Ipswich region, where my office is located—the Western Spirit Football Club. I congratulate the Western Spirit Football Club for taking this on. From the time I spent at the tournament, and from what I have heard, it is going incredibly well. Thousands of people attend these matches. It is so incredibly popular. You can host such an event only with the support of a wonderful group of volunteers. To really underline the fact that I really admire the Western Spirit Football Club for hosting this event—hopefully, as is the case with the Challenge of the Nations Netball event, this will be a long-term relationship and we will see the tournament there for many years to come. I want to give a special shoutout to the volunteers from the Western Spirit Football Club—again, excuse my pronunciation. These were the volunteers, I have been informed by the club, who have given invaluable support to the tournament: Adrian 'AJ' Varkeviseer, Malindi Varkeviseer, Douglas 'Wingy' Gooding, Mark Owen, Chris Owen, Terry Wratten, Michael Mason, Louise Mason, Emily Mason—the whole Mason family was there—Ben Portsmouth, Joel Lloyd Jones, Michelle Fyfe, Chris Fyfe, Evelyn Walsh, Trevor Walsh—you can see this club is a real family affair—Nash Blackmore, Laura Lemmon, Scott Lemon, Francis Zapata, Brad Freeman, Michael Augustin, Lachlan Augustin, Colin Manning, Isabel Walsh, Sia Keomoungkhoun and Jeanie Augustin. I think I covered everyone there—26 volunteers. Congratulations to the Western Spirit Football Club, a great community sporting organisation located in Goodna that deserves 100 per cent support. Congratulations to all the participants in these three wonderful events, and a special thank you to the coaches, mentors and all the wonderful volunteers who are organising not just sporting events but opportunities to lift young people up so they can fulfil their potential and have the opportunity to engage in these wonderful events. World Health Organization, COVID-19 80 20:09 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many varied people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight I address continuing misinformation around the World Health Organization pandemic agreement and associated changes to the WHO rulebook—the International Health Regulations. This information is current as at 28 November 2023—today. As the chamber is aware, the World Health Organization has proposed a treaty that would make the WHO the world's health police. The original proposal gave the WHO power to tell Australia how to handle the next pandemic, including the power to mandate forced vaccinations, lockdowns, business closures and even forced medical procedures. As hard as it is to believe, Australia actively promoted these measures at the inception. The WHO secretary-general is Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus, a former terrorist who led the Tigray liberation front. While the health minister of Ethiopia, Ghebreyesus held back medical aid from areas of the country that did not support the Tigray liberation front, causing a serious cholera epidemic that killed thousands of people. He's got blood on his hands, this bastard. Under his leadership the WHO were found to have looked the other way while 83 of his staff committed crimes against women in the Congo, including rape, assault and forced abortion. The investigators, who worked for the WHO, declared that, because these people were not punished, the WHO was, in their words, 'rotten with rapists'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Just one moment. Senator McCarthy. Senator McCarthy 122087 I draw you attention to the language used by Senator Roberts. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Roberts, if you could please moderate your language, that would be much appreciated. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Certainly. I can report that a small number of these workers have been fired in the last few months, a small concession that confirms the accuracy of the allegations. This is the man Australia supports as director-general of an organisation that Australia considers worthy to rule over our health response to the next virus. It's because people like Ghebreyesus can hold such powerful positions that One Nation has been calling for Australia to exit the United Nations, 'Ausexit'. Corporate doners own WHO, including vaccine salesman Bill Gates. The World Health Organization declares pandemics and then recommends mass vaccination, and the vaccines it recommends are the vaccines from WHO's donors. WHO is not running a health organisation; it is running a racketeering team. They should never be trusted to declare a pandemic and certainly never be trusted to recommend vaccines or dictate Australia's medical, social or political policy. Next, I will talk about the deadline for signing off on changes to the WHO rulebook, the International Health Regulations. Social media is saying this week is the deadline for opting out. This is false. The proposed changes to the International Health Regulations will be voted on at the same time as the pandemic agreement, in May of 2024. That time line has been the same all year. The November deadline many people contact my office about is for an entirely unrelated matter. Small changes made to the International Health Regulations in May of 2022 come into effect this week. Australia considered and ratified those changes in August after consideration through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, JSCOT. Its report was approved in votes in both houses of parliament. This is the only way a new treaty or international health regulation change can be brought into law. This means Australia has not ratified the proposed changes to the International Health Regulations, and we have not ratified the pandemic treaty. On a similar matter, the original pandemic treaty included a provision to come into effect the moment Australia signs the document in Geneva. That provision was contrary to international law and has now been replaced with an explicit statement. The treaty will not apply until Australia ratifies according to our law. We have until March 2025 for both houses of parliament to vote on the changes. It's true that One Nation has no confidence that this parliament will stand up to the WHO and refuse to sign a bad treaty. Previous governments and parliaments have rushed to embrace globalist control, and this parliament seems worst that most. So it's essential that the treaty be defeated at the source: Geneva. That campaign has been raging all year and has caused the World Health Organization to blink and water down the treaty enormously. Well done to everyone who has taken a fight to the WHO. The battle is far from over, so please maintain the rage. The latest discussion draft, released on 16 October this year, is a major reduction in scope and application. Even the name has been busted down to an 'agreement', and I thank everyone who's put pressure on the World Health Organization. I ask social media to use the latest version, titled WHO Pandemic Agreement 16 October 2023. This new document is only 28 pages, and all the provisions that have caused international outrage have been removed. Powers of compulsion are gone, and in their place are frequent confirmations of national sovereignty. The statement of human rights is back in. The bribes for African nations that would have cost Australia billions of dollars for our share have been removed. Mentioned in this document is the UN's nefarious One Health, which has been spreading through Western nations like a cancer without enabling legislation for years. One Health is a religion amongst globalist health bureaucrats and university academics, who think so little of Australia and so little of themselves they feel the need to hide behind big daddy Ghebreyesus. These pathetic human beings will be the subject of a speech very shortly. Those following along at home can open a browser and search for 'One Health in Australia' to see what I mean and check it for themselves. I'll be clear: I'm not calling this document a win since the WHO are a criminal organisation working for predatory parasitic billionaires who I would not trust to treat a headache. We must maintain the rage all the way through to May next year to ensure these unscrupulous bureaucrats do not think they will get away with sneaking compulsion back in. Another piece of misinformation I've seen everywhere lately is the claim 193 members of the United Nations have approved the pandemic treaty. This is false. What happened is the WHO, unable to get the numbers amongst their members to pass the treaty, asked the United Nations to help. The United Nations then convened a conference of parties to discuss a pandemic treaty and, after two days, failed to reach an agreement. After the meeting was concluded and delegates had gone home, the conference chair released a political statement that claimed the UN had approved a pandemic treaty. Immediately, 13 nations publicly declared this was false and no agreement was reached. This was a deceitful communique, a lie from a desperate United Nations repeated in a video from a desperate Ghebreyesus. My staff have rightly spent a huge amount of time dealing with public concern on this topic. At every step, my team has been correct, and I thank them for their hard work. I celebrate with everyone pushing back successfully to expose the World Health Organization and to awaken people globally. As the first Australian member of parliament to raise this United Nations-World Health Organization threat back in April 2022, I hope this matter can progress with more clarity and less misinformation. As a servant to the many and varied people who make up our one Queensland community, I would like to update my constituents on the committee inquiry One Nation secured looking into terms of reference for a royal commission into SARS COVID-19. The committee has set 12 January 2024 as the deadline for submissions. If any member of the public, medical profession, commercial entity or interested party wishes to, they can make a submission. It can be confidential if you want. I'll post a link on my social media and on my website, and I urge whistleblowers, senior medical practitioners and academics to have their say. I've received many suggestions for terms of reference and, firstly, can I say: please tell the committee. That's the process. Let me talk about the terms of reference. Firstly, the origin of COVID. An article in today's Australian by Sharri Markson sets out proof—and I do mean proof—that COVID was engineered as a result of gain-of-function research funded through America's National Institutes of Health and its former director Anthony Fauci. The research was conducted in China because it was out of reach of America's regulations, and it was cheaper. Gain-of-function research is supposedly so that health authorities can create new viruses and then an antidote or a vaccine so that if nature supposedly produces that virus, there will be a vaccine ready to go. Secondly, vaccine indemnity. I spoke this week about a little-known fact: Australia has provided 16 vaccine indemnities in recent years. Now, an indemnity doesn't prevent a person who has been harmed from suing, it just means any damages are paid with taxpayer money and not big pharma money. Pharmaceutical companies keep the profits and taxpayers pay for the damages. Even more troubling, the Albanese Labor government has provided Moderna with a blanket immunity for every vaccine they make in the new Australian factory. There are 400 mRNA vaccines under development. Not all will be made in this plant, yet many will be. The Morrison and Albanese governments are normalising vaccine indemnity. I want to know why. The terms of our contract with Pfizer must be examined, as we were still signing hidden purchase contracts as recently as last month. Surely this pattern of adverse events and deaths tracking injections upward and downward proves causation of vaccine deaths by their tens of thousands. The science is now overwhelming. This can't be ignored and must be investigated. (Time expired) Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Workplace Relations 82 20:19 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I know we're not allowed to use props in this place, so I won't, but here is my Christmas card for the coming year. And it's very important, because each year I use a country church from Queensland because I love Christmas and I also love old churches. The one I have chosen this year is from Bowen: the Holy Trinity Anglican Church in Bowen. It was first built in 1865, but what happens in northern and Central Queensland is that Mother Nature comes along and gets involved so buildings often have to be rebuilt. The present Holy Trinity Anglican Church was rebuilt in the mid-1930s. It was designed by a prominent Mackay architect, Harold Vivian Marsh Brown, who contributed quite substantially to the architecture of Central Queensland in that particular period. Funnily enough, this church holds much happiness for the Willcox family—Senator Scarr, you're friends with the member for Dawson. Senator Scarr 282997 Yes. Senator McGRATH 217241 Not only was he married there, but his parents were married there and one of his children is going to be married there. What I'm saying to everybody is to let this humble church be a reminder to all of us in the coming year and to let the coming year be a good year. Let peace come upon your families and let peace come upon the Holy Land. And may you have a merry Christmas. Actually, that was me being nice! Now I need to talk about the Labor Party and the unions. There would be peace in this chamber if we could get down to the bottom of the dirty deal between the Labor Party and the unions when it comes to the particular legislation called the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 and how this came about. I will tell the chamber how it came about: it came about because it is payback. It is payback from the Labor Party to the union movement because the union movement put millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars, into the election of this Labor-Greens government. This bill changes the Fair Work Act to give unions the right to bust into businesses without any notice when they believe there's a risk of so-called wage underpayment. No-one supports wage underpayment, but this bill actually isn't about that. This bill is all about payback to the union movement. The union thugs don't need to submit any documentation to the government to do this and they don't need to give the business any heads up or warning to say, 'We're going to come along'. It means that these union thugs will rock up to your business—they probably don't even have to knock on the door, they can just walk in—and you're legally required to hand over details of your finances, employment register and any other information they deem relevant in their search for alleged underpayment. This is ridiculous. I have seen a lot of rubbish proposals come to this place from the Labor Party over the years and I've seen a lot come from the watermelons, from their side of the garden patch, but this would have to take the cake. It takes the cake, it eats it and then spits it out again. Really? They're giving union thugs the legal right to break into businesses? You could be a sparky, an employer, and do the books out of your family living room in Oxley. This legislation will give unions the right to enter your home and access your private devices without any approval from the government and, more importantly, without any approval from yourself, your husband or your wife. What if you're a grazier out in Roma? Too bad! If the unions think you're underpaying someone, they can waltz up the back steps, onto the veranda and into the kitchen—which is where most people tend to do the business and paperwork—and then examine your financial records on the family computer. To small businesses across Queensland: be afraid. Be very afraid of what the Labor Party and the unions have cooked up. It also, and this is quite interesting, gives unions the right to contact your employee—or, as this act refers to them, potential members. Senator Scarr 282997 It's about the unions! Senator McGRATH 217241 This is all about the unions, as Senator Scarr has pointed out. This is all about the unions, which are dying as industrial relations organisations but are living quite well as campaigning organisations. This gives them the opportunity to try to sign up members. Less than one in 10 Australians who are in the workforce are members of a union. Why is that? Because unions are as outdated as flares; they really aren't relevant in the modern Australian workplace. This bill makes a mockery of the employee-employer relationship. I flew to Canberra on Sunday, funnily enough from Cairns, Senator Scarr. I came down here to daylight savings. I thought I would be gaining an hour because of daylight savings time, but I've gone back 50 years. I've gone back to flares. We've gone back to the union movement and the union power bosses. Senator Urquhart 231199 What's wrong with flares? Senator McGRATH 217241 Flares are a particular individual taste, Senator Urquhart, and I don't think they'd fit my rather masculine body particularly well. You'll be interested in this, Senator Urquhart. I had some spare time today. On the Australian Labor Party website—alp.org.au, if you want to go there because you've got no life—under its policy proposals page, there is a section titled Better wages for Australian workers. I kid you not. I think this is one of those comedy websites. It states: 'Labor governments are good for wages'. This would have to be one of those fake Betoota Advocate misinformation websites. This is the Labor Party saying that they're good for wages. Well, guess what? They're good for their wages, and they're good for the wages of an extra 50 politicians that they want to bring into the other chamber, which means an extra 20 politicians into this page. That's 70 extra politicians and their wages. We're in a cost-of-living crisis in Australia. The Labor Party website says that the Labor Party are good for wages, and the Labor Party want to bring more highly paid politicians to Canberra. Canberra doesn't need more politicians. It needs better politicians, particularly those sitting around the cabinet table. Let's face it: their best days are well behind them. We need good people who understand business and understand real life sitting around that cabinet table, but we also need common sense. We don't need more politicians; we need more common sense in Canberra. You're not going to get that, because the Labor Party have hit upon a cunning plan to ensure their real action by expanding the House of Reps and getting more senators into this place. Senator Scarr and I speak on behalf of the LNP contingent in Queensland. We're very happy with the quality of the LNP politicians from Queensland. Senator Scarr 282997 They're outstanding! Senator McGRATH 217241 They're outstanding, actually. It would be good to get 12 LNP politicians from Queensland, but we don't think you need more senators from Queensland. We think we can do the job well enough. Senator Scarr has talked about what he was doing on the weekend in terms of the fantastic work with those sporting organisations. I went to Tully on Sunday. Senator Scarr 282997 Oh, beautiful Tully. Was it raining? Senator McGRATH 217241 It was raining in Innisfail when I drove through. In Tully, it was what you'd call a heavy mist. I went to Tully. I had a meeting with the good members of the Liberal and National parties there and some other community meetings. They're pretty happy with the number of politicians they have. The people up there are not marching on the streets saying: 'Give us more senators; give us more politicians. That is going to solve the cost-of-living crisis; that is going to solve the crime crisis.' What I would say to the Labor is: go back and look at your website. I think it needs a good edit because, if this misinformation bill comes through, you're going to be in trouble and you're all going to the clinker, and I don't think you'll do well in jail. Senate adjourned at 20:28