2024-02-07 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 7 February 2024

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I table the 2023 annual report of the implementation of the recommendations from the Set the standard report. Today on the second anniversary of the adoption of the Set the standard report, I acknowledge that an unacceptably high rate of people, particularly women, in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces have experienced bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault whilst at work. This misconduct is unacceptable, and I acknowledge the grave impact it had, or continues to have, on previous and current staff. For two years, the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce has led the implementation of the Set the standard report reforms. The parliament thanks the taskforce for their continuous work and leadership. Today, we recommit the parliament to positive change and acknowledge achievements to date, including establishing the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service as a statutory body, offering independent and confidential support to everyone in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces; reforms to modernise the members of parliament act to ensure employees are protected from discrimination as well as refreshed professional development and improved management practices; undertaking reviews to further enhance inclusivity and dignity of access of Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces; endorsing clear and consistent codes of conduct, with consultations on the proposed independent Parliamentary Standards Commission expected to commence shortly; supporting the health and wellbeing of staff and parliamentarians with enhanced wellbeing services; improving work health and safety with a new framework to manage shared risks; and additional professional development opportunities to support leaders at all levels, particularly induction programs and training on safe and respectful workplaces. While significant progress has been made, the journey towards truly respectful and inclusive Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces is ongoing. Cultural change will come only with the goodwill of all of us parliamentarians. We must remain committed to building a workplace reflecting the nation's values and expectations, ensuring the safety and wellbeing of everyone who works in and supports the Parliament of Australia. 09:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I thank the President for the chance to make a statement on this important occasion. Two years ago, this parliament made a statement of acknowledgement in response to the experiences shared by too many people in this place that working in parliament was not a place where people, particularly women, felt safe, supported or respected. This followed cross-parliament support for the release of the Set the Standard report. As a parliament we committed to do better, acknowledging that, while it should be a workplace that leads by example, it was not. At the time, a number of current and former staff and elected representatives bravely and frankly shared their experience with the then Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins. These experiences highlighted many of the issues that for too long have characterised the experience of working in parliament, including gender inequality, with a lack of women in senior roles; a lack of accountability in systems for those who wanted to report misconduct; a 'work hard, play hard' culture at Parliament House, which had left some, particularly young women, vulnerable to exploitation and sexual assault; and high levels of power and discretion in relation to employment, combined with insecure employment. Today, we once again acknowledge that we can and must do better, and reiterate our ongoing commitment to making those changes. We table the second annual report of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, which sets out how we have progressed many of the recommendations and the work that is continuing. As per the recommendations of the Set the standard report, today's acknowledgement provides a time and place to have an annual discussion about behaviour and standards in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. There were 28 recommendations in the report and we adopted all of them, as did the former government. We have achieved some significant progress in implementing the reforms. Thirteen recommendations have been implemented, with all other recommendations in progress, partially implemented or requiring ongoing work. On 1 October last year, we established the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The PWSS is an independent agency that provides human resources support to parliamentarians and staff, as well as services to a wider cohort of people, to support a safe and respectful workplace and to support complaint resolution and review functions for misconduct such as bullying and sexual harassment. This built on the important work to improve the culture of the parliament, which the service had been supporting since its establishment. The government has also delivered legislation to implement recommendations from a review of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. That reform modernised the employment framework for parliamentarians and their staff. We remain focused on the work required to finalise implementation of the report's recommendations, with the establishment of the independent parliamentary standards commission, or the IPSC, a key priority for us all in this parliament. We are working hard to establish the IPSC by 1 October this year, subject to legislative passage and further discussions with all members and senators. This will be a significant piece of work. It's critical to the government and, I know, to members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce that we get it right. The government will work through the detail of the proposed legislation with the PLT, as we did with the former Parliamentary Workplace Support Service bills. Ultimately, the final design of the IPSC will be a matter for the parliament to determine, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the parliament to land this important piece of work. Before I conclude, I want to acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. I thank those senators and members of the House who have worked collaboratively as part of that group. I want to thank the chair, Dr Vivienne Thom, and acknowledge her work in bringing us together for these meetings, and I thank her for agreeing to stay on a little longer as we progress the work around the IPSC. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the secretariat, who have supported the PLT for the past two years: Mr Simon Arnold and Ms Tegan Johnson. It's not always easy bringing together a diverse group of politicians, and they've been a great support to us in our shared efforts to make this place a safer, better place to work. I'd also like to acknowledge all the members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce: those who sit in this chamber, Senator Hume, Senator Waters, Senator Davey and Senator Farrell; and those from the other place, Ms Sussan Ley, Ms Zali Steggall and Ms Sharon Claydon. I'm just making sure I haven't missed anybody there. It really is an example of what the parliament can do to get work done when we all put our shoulder to the wheel. I'd like to particularly acknowledge the discussions and the collaboration I've had with Senator Hume and the engagement we have out of session on these matters, and Senator Waters as well. Thank you very much. It isn't something that we can do on our own. I know everyone is deeply committed to improving the culture and workplace experience or work experience—for our staff, in particular, but for all of us in this place. We know there's always a bit of hurly-burly in this job. We engage in combat from time to time, and it can be quite willing, but I think we also remain deeply committed to making sure that the structures, the foundations and the rights and responsibilities of staff in this place are protected through the work that we're doing on the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. From the engagement that we've had with staff, including staff who have come back to this workplace in the time that this work has been going on, I would also acknowledge that this workplace has changed, and it has changed for the better. There's still work to be done, but I know, through the work of the PLT and from the commitment of every senator in this place, that we will continue to improve this workplace and address the issues that were identified in Set the standard. 09:11 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Liberal Party and the coalition also welcome the 2023 annual report from the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. Everybody deserves to feel safe and respected in their workplace. This second annual report from the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce is the health check on the work to make our Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces the safe and respectful places that they should be. This body plays an important role in ensuring that the work undertaken to implement those recommendations is done with consensus and meets the needs of our workplaces. I'd like to also thank my fellow members of the PLT: Senators Davey, Gallagher, Farrell and Waters and the members in the other place, Ms Ley, Ms Claydon and Ms Steggall. We've worked very closely together to keep government departments focused on the implementation of these reforms. I want to acknowledge that, while we come from different parties and have different perspectives, it is always constructive in how we pursue that shared goal. This work has been done in consultation with all parts of our workplaces: parliamentarians, staff and members of parliamentary departments and government departments. Even those observers in the press gallery have rightly become part of our consultation process, because they too are a very important part of the culture in our workplaces. As I noted last year, the work to change our workplaces has been made easier thanks to measures introduced by the previous coalition government. They include an independent and confidential complaints mechanism, which continues in much the same form today; the first PWSS; a confidential 24-hour support service; and new training and education programs. And the parliament of course made the first statement of acknowledgement, which is why this annual report is being tabled today, two years since that first report was made. I want to acknowledge that, while there are many objectives that are still outstanding, progress has been made. First, the most significant change that the parliament has seen is the transition of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service into a statutory body. This is a very important change. It's one that reflects the implementation of the Jenkins review being done in ways that leverage what is already working. The PWSS, which has officers inside parliament and is accessible around the clock, has now been established under its own act of parliament and is completely independent of government. However, if we're going to be honest today, we should also acknowledge that there are some delays in implementing some of the significant recommendations. We're still to see the implementation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, and this is a really important reform. We acknowledge the complexity that is involved—that is of no doubt—but it's certainly a challenge that we're going to have to address collectively. The work of the PLT has been extended until October this year to see that this work is done. The taskforce agrees that we haven't seen enough work done to implement the parliamentary health and wellbeing service, which is so important, particularly to our thousands of staff in this place. I also acknowledge that many other recommendations are ongoing. For those who might read this report and can't see the haste with which changes should be implemented or feel we have slipped, I say we are entirely aware that there needs to be a constant commitment to create and keep a better culture. For instance, the fact we are, in this calendar year, seeing the parliament sit during two school holiday weeks in Queensland might sound like a small thing but it's worth considering for those families from Queensland that may have small children. Holding those extended sitting hours or excessive hours should be something that occurs as an exception rather than a rule, for those very same reasons. For all that, we should be encouraged by our progress. I thank the independent chair of the task force, Dr Vivienne Thom; your management of our work has been exemplary. I also, like Senator Gallagher, thank the task force secretariat—in particular the long-suffering, ever-patient Tegan Johnson and Simon Arnold, who always keep us on track. I note both Simon and Tegan may well go on to bigger and better things. Please know your contribution to our workplace will always be remembered. This parliament should serve as a model workplace. We still have work to do—we have all acknowledged that—but we should be very pleased with the progress we've made. 09:16 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise for the Australian Greens to speak on the Set the standard annual report. This is the third time I have risen to speak on the implementation of recommendations from the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner's Set the standard report. Those recommendations were intended to be fully implemented within 12 months, not three years. I am proud of the progress that has been made, but there is no doubt that it has been too slow and we still have a long way to go. Establishing an independent, trauma informed parliamentary workplace support service to support staff and MPs dealing with harassment and abuse has been a huge step forward, as has adopting draft codes of conduct for senators. But, without enforcement powers, they cannot solve the problem. Recommendation 22 of the Set the standard report was that the houses of parliament should establish within 12 months an independent parliamentary standards commission to enforce codes of conduct. That IPSC was expected in October 2023. That time frame was first extended until February this year and has now blown out one whole year until October 2024. This is the second extension, and, without this body, bad behaviour continues to go unchecked. We know that, without real prospects that an MP will be sanctioned, staff are reluctant to come forward. Consequences are crucial. As a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, I know work to set up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission is complex but there is no doubt it has been much too slow—inexcusably so. Members of parliament have significant power to shape the lives of our communities. Given that responsibility, we need a system that effectively holds us to account. Set the standard recommended that the IPSC have the power to operate a fair, independent, confidential and transparent system to receive disclosures as well as handle complaints about misconduct, make findings about misconduct, make recommendations on sanctions and apply sanctions for a breach of the code of conduct. Without genuine consequences, such as suspension from parliament or loss of entitlements or directions to provide a public apology, there is little to deter the bad behaviour that we see time and time again. The Greens will continue to push for real accountability and transparency so that the IPSC, when it is eventually established, can effectively hold people to account. While that work to establish the IPSC is being done, it is still the responsibility of every MP to act consistently with the commitments that we made when endorsing those codes of conduct and for all parties to act quickly in response to complaints. We know that, for First Nations people, people of colour and people with disability, harassment and disrespect experienced in this place or online when working in parliamentary roles is even worse. Sexism, racism, ablism, homophobia and classism persist and are even more damaging and dangerous when they intersect. Increasing diversity in this place is crucial. That cannot happen without measures to make this a safe workplace for a more diverse range of people. I salute my colleagues Senator Faruqi, Senator Cox and Senator Steele-John as true leaders in that space. But we have a long way to go. When female MPs are still being subject to sexist, intimidatory behaviour, you can only imagine how much worse it is for staff. Indeed, Set the standard showed that more than half those surveyed had experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault. We are deeply sorry, and we have to be better—every single one of us, every single day. We must make sure that current and former staff, affected survivors, are involved in these reforms in a meaningful way and feel supported to tell us when we're not doing enough or when we're going too slowly. We must support those who have suffered and who are still suffering from their experience. We must continue the work to establish a robust, independent, confidential complaints process that people can trust and will use. Here in parliament, it is time, finally, for our workplace to set the standard. In concluding, I'd like to add my thanks to the secretariat of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. I thank Dr Vivienne Thom for continuing on in the role until October, and I pay particular thanks to Mr Simon Arnold and Ms Tegan Johnson for the excellent support that they've provided as the secretariat. I wish them the best in their future roles. It does feel like this place has changed, but we still have so much further to go, and this isn't just a tick-a-box exercise, folks. We really need to hurry up, get on with establishing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, agree on giving it strong powers and actually put that work into practice. There's no more time for excuses. 09:21 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Nationals and as a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce to comment on the 2024 annual report. At the outset, I want to thank my colleagues on the taskforce for their constructive and collaborative efforts to implement the recommendations of the Set the standard report authored by then Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins. I agree with my colleague Senator Hume, because change takes time. It is vitally important that when we're going through these recommendations and working out how to implement them—when we're taking it from the theoretical to the practical—we strongly consider all the implications and ramifications of what is proposed to make sure that we don't inadvertently bring about unintended consequences that can actually make it worse for us, for our staff and for all the people who work in this building. We don't want to accidentally create a situation where we, by trying to address issues, create something that might have more risk. So it is right that we take a respectful approach to these recommendations and make sure that we are implementing things that are practical and enforceable but don't create excess risk. One of the first things that the PLT did was manage to establish the PWSS, the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. That has now been legislated and is always fully operational. I want to thank the staff at the PWSS and commend their early work and the work they continue to do. I have heard from both staff and parliamentarians that just having this service that they can go to for confidential information and feedback has given them a greater level of confidence in their own ability to manage staff, to manage complaints and to manage workplace issues. So I really want to commend the PWSS. I think it is a great service and, as time goes on, its value will be further recognised. In the PLT, together we have worked to see 13 of the 28 recommendations fully implemented, and that is progress. There are also eight recommendations in progress, six partly implemented and one pending. That is a significant achievement that should be recognised, as well as the achievement of bringing together members from across the political spectrum to pass the legislation that was needed and to adopt the changes required to make this place a better, safer and more respectful place to work. When I attended the breakfast held by UN women this morning to set the scene and establish the theme for this year's International Women's Day—the theme of 'Count Her In', to empower women and to address financial literacy across women—it really brought home what we're trying to achieve in the PLT, not just for women but for the range of diversity we should celebrate in this society, be it race, religion, gender, geography or heritage. That's what we need to support and that's what this place needs to recognise, because it should be all of that. We who are elected to this place have a responsibility to represent our constituents honestly and with integrity, and those we employ and those who are employed in this building to help us do our jobs should be able to go about their business safely, without fear of harassment or bullying, and with respect. So I, too, thank the secretariat. I thank Vivienne Thom and I thank all my colleagues who are committed to working together to make this place a better place to work. Thank you. 09:26 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to speak on the report of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. I thought I would start with a statement from one of the staffers who spoke to the inquiry: This is Parliament. It should set the standard for workplace culture, not the floor of what culture should be. Who could possibly argue with that? But, as we have seen over the past few years, the standard of workplace culture in this place is not that flash. We have heard a lot of hair-raising stories about the culture of bullying and sexual harassment in this place. I'm not going to speak about this, because I can see that plenty of you have. What I do want to talk about is what the report says about 'long and irregular hours of work'—not something that will be touched by the government's industrial relations reforms, mind you, because none of those reforms apply to the people who work in parliament. When this government was elected, one of its first acts was to take two advisers from every lower house and Senate crossbencher. At the time, the Prime Minister said that crossbench MPs shouldn't have twice the staff of government and opposition MPs. He also said that assistant ministers should get only two additional staff, according to the Prime Minister, and that it was not sustainable for crossbench MPs to have more. What the Prime Minister was ignoring and didn't bother to tell the public was this: assistant ministers have an army of public servants from their departments, not to mention the resources of the party machine, to draw upon. Crossbenchers do not have that. We have two advisers, who have to be across all the legislation coming through. That's our job, and I take that very seriously. 'Respect' is a word that appears on almost every page of the Set the standard report. But what was very clear to every crossbencher in the Senate and the House is that the Prime Minister has very little respect for the job we do, let alone our staff. And this was after the Prime Minister promised to treat the crossbench with respect. We usually get the legislation for each week's sitting in the last few days before the next sitting. Maybe they think that if the crossbench gets the legislation late then they won't bother to go through it; they will just wave it through. But that's something I will never do. This means that my advisers have to work the weekend before a sitting, and they usually work the weekend in the middle of the sitting. That's 17 days straight by the time we have finished. So, we get all the bills a few days before they hit the Senate. This can mean that my team have to get across a lot of bills. Then there are the amendments, which, again, can be many, especially in a week like this, when we're doing IR. We have to dissect the amendments and then go back out and engage with the stakeholders, not to mention preparing speeches that accurately respond to the legislation in question. And of course then there are estimates and the parliamentary business of the Senate, holding the government to account on behalf of the Australian people. Then there are the committees that we participate in, which are really important, especially if you are new and want to learn a lot more. That means going to as many hearings as you possibly can to get good at your job, reading all the submissions and, again, engaging with the stakeholders. I couldn't do any of that without the hard work of my team. It's my job to be across all this, and I work long hours and am paid well to do that job for the Australian people. To be clear, I am not complaining, because I love my job—just as I did in uniform—and I find it an absolute privilege. My concern is for the health and welfare of my staff. When parliament is sitting, my staff regularly work 12- or 14-hour days and sometimes even longer. My electoral staff are also impacted by the sittings. If something happens or a bill is contentious, my office gets flooded with calls, and sometimes they can be extremely abusive. That means the electoral office staff have to take more of those calls, as well as the usual electoral and constituent calls. This doesn't include the hundreds of calls my office gets from veterans. Recommendation 4 in the Set the standard report is about individual leadership: To strengthen individual leadership to ensure a safe and respectful work environment … How can I ensure a safe environment when I don't have enough staff? How can I ensure a safe environment when my staff are often sleep deprived? Doctors will tell you that not having enough sleep impacts your health and wellbeing. If this government really wants to set the standard then giving the crossbench members and senators the staff we need is critical not just for us but for their own wellbeing. Is showing the crossbench and our staff respect really that hard? Seriously! Question agreed to. BUSINESS 6 BUSINESS Rearrangement 6 09:31 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to general business notice of motion No. 451, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to general business notice of motion No. 451, relating to Gaza, to be moved and determined immediately. Here today, we know that 26,000 people have been killed in Gaza. Those who remain are at severe risk of disease and starvation, and this risk only grows daily. In the face of this horror, our community has not fallen into indifference or been paralysed by despair. Rather, they have fallen into community. Together, our community have taken action. They've been arm in arm at the picket line, rallied in their thousands and shared content online, bringing Palestinian voices into our living rooms and onto our phones. The horrific reality is that from these living rooms and through these phones we have borne witness to genocide. Our community have known this for months, and in January the International Court of Justice made their interim ruling. The Albanese government's response to this has been completely inadequate. Instead of calling for an end to the genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanitarian laws and destruction, they have cut aid and funding supplied to keep Palestinians alive, while continuing to support and resource the Israel Defense Forces, giving them the cover and the capacity that they need to continue to carry out atrocity. The Greens and the community are imploring the Australian government to take new measures to send a strong message that these crimes are unacceptable to the Australian community and illegal under international law. The government could formally intervene and voice its support for South Africa's genocide case against the State of Israel at the International Court of Justice. The Australian government could apply Magnitsky style sanctions to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and his entire war cabinet. The Australian government could reinstate immediately the financial resources that it has denied to the very organisations fighting right now to keep Palestinian children alive, to keep starvation at bay, to provide people with the water and medication which has been illegally denied them by the actions of the State of Israel. And the Australian government could unequivocally state its support for a permanent and immediate ceasefire. There is so much that this government could be doing, and yet it is simply choosing not to. This government is out of step with the Australian community and, far too often in the course of the last 120 days, has been in step with the United States and others who have sought to cover for the State of Israel and its crimes. As a community we want a ceasefire, we want peace and an end to the illegal occupation, and we expect the government to work to achieve this. Instead, we are seeing the government choose the side of the occupier, choose the side of the invader and continue to back up perpetrators of these crimes in international spaces. It is choosing to take funds for life-saving aid away from those providing that aid on the ground. Now, in the face of this reality, our community will continue to protest. Our community will protest, we will organise, we will take to the picket lines again and again in the name of a just and lasting peace, and we will call out Labor's woeful response. We in the Greens will keep talking about Palestine, no matter how uncomfortable it makes those in this place feel. 09:37 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Listening to Senator Steele-John, you might not recall that, on 7 October, brutal Hamas terrorists— Senator FARRELL I0N I sat quietly, Senator, while you made your statement. I'd like to get the same respect, if you don't mind. Senator FARRELL I0N I'd ask for the same respect. What I'm saying is that it would seem, from listening to your address a moment ago, Senator Steele-John, that the events of 7 October, when Hamas terrorists murdered, raped and kidnapped innocent Israeli civilians, did not occur, but they did occur, Senator Steele-John. Australia is a respected voice on the conflict in the Middle East, even if we're not central players in the Middle East. The government is using Australia's voice to strongly advocate the release of hostages, the protection of civilians, humanitarian access and a pathway out of this conflict. It's of deep regret that the government does not have partners in this effort, especially the Greens, who are only looking at how they use this crisis to whip up votes. That's the reality. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N That is the reality. You're only using this to whip up votes as a— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Farrell, resume your seat, please. Senator Steele-John was heard in silence. That is a respectful approach. I ask that Senator Farrell be able to make his remarks in silence. Senator McKim JKM On a point of order, Acting Deputy President: Senator Farrell is impugning the motives of— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 There is no point of order, Senator McKim. Senator McKim JKM There is actually a point of order, based on the President's ruling yesterday in regard to Senator Hume. I ask that you either rule now or come back to the chamber later with a ruling on whether impugning the motives, which is clearly what happened, of a group of people—that is, the Greens senators—in this place in the most despicable way is within or contrary to standing orders. Senator Scarr 282997 On the point of order: the point of order yesterday that was raised was in relation to Senator Hume's reference to the government and use of the term 'lie', which has a particular connotation in the context of our standing orders. With due respect to Senator McKim, I don't think there's substance to his point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 My advice is that it's appropriate to rule against that point of order, but, as I am acting in this chair, if I you would like me to have a conversation with the President about that at a later stage, I will. But my advice is that Senator Farrell is in order. Senator FARRELL I0N If the Greens were sincere in their concern about the crisis in the Middle East, they would be engaging on a pathway to peace and keeping our community unified. But, instead, what we see of the Greens is that they're seeking to divide our community simply to pick up votes. I would remind the Greens that right now— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I know you don't want to listen to this, but right now there are more than 130 hostages currently being held by Hamas. An estimated 1.7 million people in Gaza are internally displaced, and there are increasingly fewer places for the Palestinians to go. I remind the Senate that we are seeing attacks on Iran-aligned militias right across the region. The Houthis are conducting attacks in the Red Sea right now that are threatening international maritime trade and regional security. We're supporting the United States and the United Kingdom efforts to disrupt, degrade and deter them. I know you don't want any of those things, but that's— Senator Scarr 282997 If he could withdraw that remark. I also have a point of order: the continual interjections to Senator Farrell's contribution. You've repeatedly called a number of senators to order. I think it's getting beyond a joke. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Shoebridge, you've been requested to withdraw your remark. I did not hear it, but I'm inviting you to withdraw, please. Senator Shoebridge 169119 Is that my comment that he's a lapdog of the United States? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Shoebridge, it is not appropriate to repeat the remark. Senator Shoebridge 169119 For the assistance of debate, I will withdraw the remark. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 I will return the call to Senator Farrell, but I do ask that senators treat this debate respectfully. I appreciate that it is important to many people in this chamber. Senator Steele-John was heard in silence. I ask you to allow Senator Farrell to continue his remarks. Senator FARRELL I0N We're working with our partners to manage risk to avoid regional escalation of the issue. I said before that we don't have partners in this effort. The Greens continue to be interested not in a unified community and a pathway to peace. Israelis deserve better, Palestinians deserve better, and the Australian people deserve better. 09:43 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We live in a world, tragically, where there is immense suffering. Over the last year tens of thousands of people have lost their lives in Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan and, of course, many other conflicts around the world, including in the Middle East. But all we get from the Greens are one-sided motions focusing on one country and one conflict. That's the approach that comes from those opposite. This, again, is a one-sided motion which ignores the cause of the current war in Gaza. There was no war in Gaza on 6 October, and there were no Israeli troops in Gaza on 6 October. The Greens motion fails to even mention Hamas, who on 7 October undertook the largest killing of Jews on a single day since the Holocaust. They seem to want to wipe that from history. The motion fails to mention those atrocities. It fails to mention that Hamas continues to hold hostages taken on 7 October, who have been held hostage now for 123 days. It ignores the fact that Hamas—its leaders, its operatives, its supporters in Hezbollah, its supporters among Houthi rebels and support coming from Iran and elsewhere—continue to call for a repeat of the 7 October attack, for Israel to be destroyed and for their aspiration of what would amount to genocide of the Jewish people. The reality is no nation could or would live with the ongoing threat that is posed to its citizens by Hamas. No nation would live with that threat on its doorstep having lived through the horrors and terror that occurred on 7 October. Is the tragic loss of life in Gaza something we should all grieve and wish to see come to an end? Of course, it is. Is the tragic loss of life that occurred in Israel something we should all grieve and wish never to be repeated? Of course. That's just as we should wish the tragic loss of life in Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan and everywhere else in conflict around the world to come to an end. But posturing motions from the Australian Greens in the Australian Senate that are one-sided, singularly focused and calling for a ceasefire without consideration of the consequences will do nothing to actually prevent a repeat of tragic deaths in these circumstances around the world. The best ceasefire that could occur is not what the Greens call for, which is one that would enable Hamas to remain in leadership in Gaza and would enable Hamas to re-arm, regroup and fulfil their publicly stated aspiration to repeat the horrors of 7 October. An appropriate ceasefire would be one which called for Hamas to disarm and be disabled, for its leadership to surrender, for hostages to be released and for the vast tunnel network that is estimated to be bigger than the New York subway system, built under hospitals, schools and public infrastructure right across Gaza, to be destroyed, giving the Palestinian people living in Gaza the chance to not be used as human shields by Hamas terrorists but actually have an opportunity for peace to be negotiated in their future lives. The Greens motion is one-sided when it comes to the International Court of Justice interim ruling as well, which did recognise Israel's right to self-defence. It did acknowledge that Hamas initiated the war on 7 October and further found that Hamas has neither surrendered nor given any undertaking not to repeat the terrorist attack, and there is no obligation under international law for Israel to agree to a ceasefire given Hamas's actions. The coalition strongly opposes Australia supporting South Africa's case in the ICJ, which is as an unbalanced as the Greens are in their posture and position. This parliament should be reiterating the comments and commitments it made in its bipartisan motion in October last year unequivocally condemning the Hamas attacks on 7 October, standing clearly with Israel and their inherent right to defend themselves, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of hostages, supporting efforts to ensure humanitarian access into Gaza, calling for the protection of civilian lives and the observance of international law and condemning all forms of hate speech, in particular the rising antisemitism we have seen. That's not what we get from the Greens, but it is certainly what we stand for. 09:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 The question is that the question be now put on the motion to suspend standing orders.  

The Senate divided. [09:53]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marielle Smith)

33 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. 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. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 11 NOES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 09:55 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [09:55]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marielle Smith)

10 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 31 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 10 BILLS Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023 10

Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023

Second Reading 10 09:59 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I will continue my contribution on the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023. As I began with my short contribution at the end of last year, I want to put on record my support for this bill, which has been brought before the Senate by my colleague Senator David Fawcett. I know that Senator Fawcett put an incredible amount of hard work into developing this bill, which seeks to improve the processes by which defence equipment and materials are procured for use by the Australian Defence Forces. Following its introduction to the Senate last year, the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023 was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on 11 May 2023. Both Senator Fawcett and I sit on this committee, and the committee heard evidence from witnesses across two public hearings, including from the Department of Defence, the International Test and Evaluation Association and Nova Systems. Following the hearings and taking into account evidence from written submissions made on the bill, it is the view of coalition senators that this bill be amended and passed today. I will briefly address our amendments to the bill and foreshadow them later in my contribution. The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee tabled its final report on 24 November last year. It was disappointing that government members of that committee have recommended that the bill not be passed, despite the fact that a majority of submitters and witnesses were supportive of the bill. Of the submissions received from individuals with considerable knowledge and expertise in test and evaluation, many raised concerns with Australia's defence capability assurance system. In fact, despite recommending that the bill not be passed, the report of the committee itself notes: Defence has itself acknowledged that it has 'sometimes failed' to live up to its commitment to ensuring adequate T&E is performed in the context of capability acquisition and sustainment decisions. It is encouraging that Defence has acknowledged these shortcomings in relation to test and evaluation and, as the committee report notes, is working to address these deficiencies. However, coalition senators do not believe that the views expressed in the majority committee report reflect the extent of the concern raised by expert witnesses in regard to the current state of defence test and evaluation capability and practice. As coalition senators don't support the findings in the majority report, we tabled a dissenting report in support of the bill, which would establish a defence capability assurance agency and related oversight bodies. The coalition recognises that there are many dedicated and hardworking people within both the Australian Defence Force and the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, all working to upgrade and modernise Australia's defence capabilities to meet current and future challenges. The adoption of this bill that we're debating here today would only enhance their ability to assess risks and make timely decisions when it comes to investment in and acquisition of defence capabilities. This bill proposes a number of important reforms that should be considered in relation to Australia's future defence procurement and capability. The bill creates an independent statutory body responsible for assessing the complex risks associated with materiel procurement and sustainment, including but not limited to technical risks pertaining to performance and certification. This will expedite the procurement of defence capability by providing capability managers and government a high degree of confidence in the veracity and completeness of the information that they use to make timely, risk informed decisions. It will also provide assurance to capability managers, the Australian government and the parliament that weapons systems will be available for use when required and effective against extant and emerging threats. This bill will make existing defence procurement processes and requirements more effective and more efficient. The explanatory memorandum states that the bill seeks to address the root cause of past failures and ensure that defence acquisition and sustainment decisions are well informed by test and evaluation based on four core principles: independence, task-specific competence, transparency and accountability. As I flagged earlier, coalition senators, in our dissenting report, flagged a number of amendments informed through the public hearings and written submissions which take into account the views and expert evidence from witnesses. Coalition senators recommend the bill and explanatory memorandum be amended to: remove the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on defence and require the government to include oversight of the defence capability assurance agency that this bill would establish by the joint statutory committee on defence which was announced in August last year in response to work by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; require the defence capability assurance agency to benchmark test and evaluation qualification and practice standards with relevant professional associations and peer organisations to ensure they reflect international best practice; and clarify that the defence capability assurance agency, as a Commonwealth agency, will be responsible for the award of contracts for T&E services and require the board to engage with industry stakeholders during its establishment to ensure that there is an effective mechanism to provide open and fair competition. All of these amendments will be dealt with in the committee stage by my colleague Senator Fawcett. Of course we recommend that the bill be passed. There is no doubt this bill should be amended and passed. Like I said, my colleague Senator Fawcett has put significant time and effort into this private senator's bill which we have now before the Senate. The Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023 proposes a number of important reforms that should be considered in relation to Australia's future defence procurement and capability including by creating an independent statutory body responsible for assessing the risks associated with materiel procurement and sustainment. It has gone through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and, as I said, written submissions and testimony from witnesses during the public hearings have further developed and refined this bill, which is once again a sign of this Senate and our Senate committees doing their work incredibly well, with feedback informing the amendments that Senator Fawcett will table later in relation to this bill. It is imperative that this bill be amended and passed by the Senate today to improve Australia's national security. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:04 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to speak on the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023. This bill isn't perfect; they never are. I note the concerns by contributors to the inquiry. But I will be supporting this legislation because it does go some way towards improving our defence procurement processes. I can tell you they desperately need improvement, and that's putting it politely. Defence is an absolute basket case when it comes to procurement, and a very, very expensive basket case at that. Here are just a couple of examples. There's the Future Submarine project—$4 billion wasted on not getting a submarine—and the replacement nuclear submarine program, which is going to suck $368 billion from the defence budget. That's at the expense of other capabilities, and it will not deliver a sub until at least 2035, and I'm estimating it won't be delivered even then. It'll well and truly be over by then. The US military already predicts that China will seek to take back Taiwan in the next five years. Getting nuclear powered submarines halfway through the next decade is like putting together a great footy team after the grand final has actually been played. If conflict occurs in the Taiwan Strait and the government commits Australian forces, our submariners will be asked to go into a highly intense battle space in Collins class submarines that were supposed to be decommissioned from 2025. I know that the government is planning to extend the life of the Collins by upgrading its diesel engines, main motors and other platform systems. But recently, at Senate estimates, Defence conceded that it would not be possible to make the upgrades in the original two-year time frame and it's likely to take three or more years. Why does that not surprise me? Of course, that means the costs to the taxpayer out there will increase. Welcome to defence procurement, eh? You couldn't make this stuff up on Neighbours. Then there's the Multi-Role Helicopter Program, another $3.8 billion wasted, and it was doubly wasted. Then there was the SkyGuardian, another cancelled program that has wasted 1.3 billion bucks and gone nowhere, and the Army's Battle Management System—there goes another billion bucks of taxpayers' money. The Spartan aircraft cost another $1.4 billion. The Tiger helicopter program cost another billion. But wait. There's more. I know. I really feel for you Australian taxpayers today. Then there's the Future Frigate Program, the program price of which went from $30 billion to $45 billion, and it looks like that may well be cancelled or scaled back. These are capabilities that either have not been received by us or have not met expectations. All this money has been wasted on capabilities that our frontline service men and women now have to do without. By the way, Defence has been asked to significantly increase the number of Defence Force personnel, but over the last five years those numbers have been going backwards. Perhaps the best overall description of the waste in defence procurement comes from the Auditor-General's major project review. It's a shame it's not tomorrow, because tomorrow the Auditor will table his next Major projects report, and we'll be able to take a close look at his update. But in last year's report he detailed the fact that there have been 1,321 months of delay in major Defence programs. We often spend days in this chamber arguing over measures designed to save a few hundred million dollars, while over at Defence they're just shredding—and I mean shredding—billions upon billions of dollars in taxpayers' money. We have a rogue organisation—there is no nice way to put that—across the lake at Russell Offices. They take taxpayers' money and simply throw it away, with no accountability for their actions. What's new? There is no accountability for their actions, whether they are Defence or senior public servants, on waste of taxpayers' money. By the way, they still stay in their jobs. God! In fact, the truth is they're over there patting themselves on the back, saying what a great job they've done in wasting your money. Also, while they're doing that, they're going: 'Whoa-ho! Let's nominate each other for the Order of Australia and other honours.' They love doing that stuff. Look at the Secretary of the Department of Defence. He just got one. He's responsible for the debacle I just described. Instead of punishing him, we give him medals. That's what we have done: we've given him medals. He, along with people like Major General Kathryn 'Robodebt' Campbell and Michael 'Political Text' Pezzullo, is devaluing the currency of these awards. That's what they're doing. These awards are worth— Senator LAMBIE 250026 There you go. Just give them awards. These awards— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Lambie, please take your seat. Senator Ciccone? Senator Ciccone 281503 I'm always reluctant to interrupt Senator Lambie, but I would insist that she refer to the two individuals by their correct titles. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Lambie. Senator LAMBIE 250026 As much as it's going to kill me with Mr Moriarty— Senator LAMBIE 250026 It is killing me because, quite frankly, that's not how I feel. This bill does something. It's a bill that introduces both technical oversight, like the very well respected US Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and a bit of—a bit of—political oversight of Defence, not nearly enough. You just don't learn, you people in here. In relation to the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, or the DOTE, as they are known, the reports they do are honest and publish the real state of US projects, not the snow job which—I'm putting it politely—we get at estimates. When I want to know what's going on with US equipment used by the ADF, I go to the DOTE reports. How embarrassing! I've got to go to their reports instead of our own. But it's better than nothing, I guess. This bill, as much as it does not go nearly far enough, is about as good as it's going to get at this present time. I thank the committee for doing this inquiry, but what is really needed here is a major rethink; it is a major rethink. I cannot believe how many people that are in these major parties here at times are comfortable with a billion dollars being wasted, because, quite frankly, it is absolutely shameful. But what's even more shameful is that you are putting at risk our service men and women if they have to go to war, let alone the national security of this country. What is needed is a hell of a lot more transparency. Defence is another organisation that is overly secretive for no reason but to cover its own behind, and it's secrecy that serves to hide all manner of all the projects since. All too often we see a project that is working perfectly one week being cancelled the next on account of long-term failures. I'll be supporting Senator Fawcett's bill and I congratulate him for doing it. 10:12 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia In the short time that I have to speak, I rise to speak in strong support of this bill, the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2024, and I commend my colleague and friend Senator David Fawcett for his initiative on this matter. There is no-one, I think, in Australia that has more passion for test and evaluation and is more knowledgeable on the military requirements for this. The bottom line is that the ADF, after 20 years, have still failed to implement their test and evaluation policies. For those who are not familiar with the expression T&E, it is a structured process for obtaining objective information on both the risk and the quality of the materiel, the equipment and the armaments that our Defence Force use. In plain English, it means ensuring that the complex and dangerous equipment that our ADF personnel use are as safe as we can make them for our personnel on operations, on deployments and also in training. As formerly both the Minister for Defence and Army adjutant general with responsibility for capability assurance processes, I know that there is nothing more important than getting this right. I also know that the current system is chronically underfunded, it is often performed in a perfunctory way and, we heard in the inquiry, staff often pulled their punches for fear that the answers they got might impact on the schedule and perhaps the cost. The bill creates an independent statutory body responsible for these processes, the details of which are in the bill. This approach of having risk assessment conducted independently, I think, is a very sound one, and it is an approach that our AUKUS allies have adopted. In particular, in the United States this process and having this independent assurance agency have actually made capability decisions faster, more reliable and more secure, and it is for these reasons I support this bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The time allotted for the bill has expired. The question is that the private senator's bill on defence capability assurance and oversight be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 13 10:15 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 2289 together: (1) Title, page 1, (lines 2 to 4), omit ", the Inspector-General of Defence Capability Assurance and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence", substitute "and the Inspector-General of Defence Capability Assurance". (2) Clause 4, page 3, (lines 27 to 31), omit the paragraph beginning "This Act also". (3) Clause 5, page 4 (line 10), omit "the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence", substitute "a Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee with oversight over defence". (4) Clause 5, page 4 (lines 11 and 12), omit the definition of Committee member. (5) Clause 9, page 8 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph (d) of the paragraph beginning "The Agency's", substitute: (d) reporting to the Defence Minister and a Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee with oversight over defence. (6) Clause 19, page 15 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add: (4) The Defence Capability Assurance Agency must, on behalf of the Commonwealth, ensure that the person or entity who has entered into an agreement with the Agency under subsection (1), in maintaining, developing and regulating workforce and infrastructure standards as mentioned in subsection 11(2), does not inhibit effective competition for the defence industry sector to deliver services required by the Agency in the performance of its functions. (7) Part 4, clauses 73 to 103, page 46 (line 1) to page 65 (line 5), to be opposed. I'd like to thank my colleagues in the committee. I recognise the chair, Senator Ciccone, and his participation and leadership of the committee, as well as Senator Chandler as the deputy chair. As colleagues have spoken both today and previously, there are many people in Defence who work extremely hard to bring about good capability. But what we have seen over too many years is that there are pressures that either lead to risk not being assessed at all or not being assessed by people who are qualified to do so. Therefore decisions that are made are not made on a basis of an accurate understanding of technical and scheduled risk not only to safety but also to operational effectiveness. Thirdly—and I think possibly the worst case—where the ADF does have qualified test agencies who do an assessment and make an adverse finding, those reports are sometimes set aside, proactively dismissed or challenged with alternative unqualified reporting to give a project manager or a capability group the opportunity to still progress the project in accordance with the schedule that they wish. That has a significant impact, sometimes on safety and often on capability. Through the inquiry into this bill, we received a number of submissions—some public; some in camera—which went into some detail about the fact that this is not only historic with things like the Seasprite—probably one of the worst procurement failures in Australia's history—where this kind of deliberate ignoring of technical advice was at the root of that failure, but there are some projects that are quite current that had the same characteristics. That's despite a number of ANAO reviews and parliamentary reviews into Defence's test and evaluation process which has resulted in a flurry of new process. There is so much process that you could exceed the weight margins of a future frigate with the extra paperwork that's been generated! What we see is that it's not applied consistently and it's not resourced. Even where it is applied, it's often not listened to. That's the purpose of this bill: to provide for the fact that assessment of risk could be done by people who are qualified to do so, that they will be suitably resourced and that their reports will be transparently available not only to the capability managers in the project but to the senior decision-making committees in Defence; and, importantly, also to the Minister for Defence and, therefore, to the National Security Committee of Cabinet; and to an oversight committee appropriately tailored in terms of the disclosure of information, so that there can be a transparent understanding across all levels of decision-making as to what the risks are and whether they are acceptable, whether they need to be managed or, in some cases, whether projects should be cancelled. Those are important things to get right. This bill seeks to do that. I would welcome the government considering—and the government and Defence have acknowledged that there are problems in this system and that there are things that need to be rectified. The internal reform efforts that have been attempted in Defence under both sides of politics for a couple of decades have not proven to be effective or sustainable. I think we need the approach that's been taken by our allies in the US of creating an independent statutory body that doesn't duplicate but that actually utilises to better effect available existing resources and grows new resources that are competent and capable for the job at a time when global circumstances indicate that the risk of conflict is greater now than at any time since World War II. If ever there were a time when we needed to make sure that every dollar spent was spent effectively and every month procuring, training and operating was spent effectively, now is that time. That's why there has been time management applied to this bill today—so that it will be brought to a vote and can move from here to the House. I would encourage the government to look seriously in the House as to how we move forward and rectify a longstanding problem that has both degraded the operational effectiveness and the safety of defence equipment and, in far too many cases, has cost the taxpayer unnecessary billions of dollars in waste, where risks and technical issues were identified early but disregarded because people didn't want their projects to be derailed. So this is an important bill. During the committee process, we heard from a range of stakeholders. There were also some changed circumstances. The two amendments that I am putting forward deal with some of that feedback from stakeholders and one of those changed circumstances. Part of the design of the bill is to have parliamentary oversight and so it originally established a parliamentary joint committee on defence in a similar way to the intelligence and security committee is created through the Intelligence Services Act and has oversight of agencies with classified information and detailed briefings and insight. The government, in response to a report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, undertook to establish a committee that, whilst different in name, for all intents and purposes was comparable in terms of function. So, rather than duplicating the effort there, one of my amendments here removes that section of this bill, recognising that the government's committee which they have undertaken to create this year will actually perform that function. Of the amendments (1) to (7), a number of those are consequential amendments that need to occur to the bill because that committee has been removed. The main effect is the removal of the parliamentary joint committee on defence. The second concern that was raised by stakeholders on one of the aspects of the bill is that if we want people to be competent in the conduct of technical risk assessment and operational risk assessment then we need to (a) have standards and (b) audit the people who get appointed to the roles and their ongoing professional qualifications, training, development and conduct to make sure they are consistent with those standards. We do this elsewhere in the Defence Force—very successfully, I might add—with the Director of Aviation Safety setting standards and then making sure that, whether somebody is Army, Navy, Air Force or a contractor, they meet the standards before they are appointed to a role and they are audited for their ongoing compliance against those standards. The bill recognises that one of the shortfalls in defence has been a lack of consistency in the ability to retain the depth of knowledge to have a body to set such standards and it looks to engage an industry partner to do that. There were some concerns raised that perhaps that could lead to monopolistic behaviour, and so the second amendment here is placing additional obligations on the board of the Defence Capability Assurance Agency to ensure, both by the legislation and in the change to the explanatory memorandum, that they consult with service providers broadly across industry to ensure that the due diligence and the checks and balances they put in place are effective but also trusted by the industry sector to know that this will set a high standard, but it will be in no way monopolistic in practice. That will go a long way towards helping this agency to be effective and to not duplicate resources but also to be a catalyst for the development of further uniformed and therefore operationally experienced people with the training and qualifications in test and evaluation who can play their part in expediting capability and procurement decisions within defence because people know they can trust the assessment of risk. With that, I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum. 10:24 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens support each of these amendments, largely for the reasons articulated by Senator Fawcett. If you just wanted a very short summary about why it is essential that, if not this bill, some other statutory mechanism to deal with defence procurement is urgently passed by the parliament and implemented by the government, you could just repeat the words 'Hunter class frigates' and the disaster that is the Hunter class frigates procurement. You could look at the sorry history with the Seasprites, as Senator Fawcett pointed out. There was extraordinary waste and delay in that procurement process by Australia. It was eventually cancelled because apparently they don't work. Meanwhile, New Zealand picks them up, and they've been working just fine at a fraction of the cost that Australia was going to procure and maintain them for. If you wanted to finish it off with two further current procurement disasters, we could look at a government that has spent a billion dollars or more buying Taipan helicopters. There was institutional resistance within Army aviation to that for the last 20 years. There were internal fights and pushbacks. A range of highly controversial modifications were put on them. Now we're going through a very opaque process, for reasons that haven't been articulated by the government, of stripping them down, cutting them up into small pieces and burying them in the outback somewhere. From one view, that's the Greens defence policy: we take a whole lot of weapons of war, we cut them up into pieces and we bury them in the ground! That the Greens defence policy: we take armaments out of the world, and we disarm the world. But the process, the rationale, the decisions and the incredible waste that we've seen from government in that process—do the government say that's good? Do the government say it's all fine? Do the government say their internal controls are actually working? If you wanted the last bit of icing on the cake: something as simple as an offshore patrol vessel, a grand patrol boat. Procure an offshore patrol vessel, don't put any weapons on it and then tack on some kind of second-hand gun—because you've gotta have a gun. Nobody thinks it's going to work. I was just checking: the first OPV, the SA Arafura, was launched—it's not a big boat—in December 2021. Do you know when Defence think they may have it in commission? Did I mention that it just has one second-hand gun on it? They think that sometime this year they might get the first patrol boat into commission. A patrol boat! An offshore patrol vessel! It was launched at the end of 2021, and they might get the first of them into commission by the end of this year. Nobody quite knows what they're for, anyhow. Nobody can quite work out what they're for. They don't have an identifiable purpose. Maybe they can chase fisherfolk in the north. Heaven knows how much we've spent on that. If not this bill, then what? For the government to come and say they've got internal reviews, they've got this internal process and the people that have created the problem—Secretary Moriarty has got this in hand? Sorry, Secretary Moriarty OBA, SEQ, SPT—I can't remember how many honorifics he's got now through that self-perpetuating honours cycle that the defence department and the services put themselves through. Secretary Moriarty has got this in hand, has he? Yeah, sure. 10:28 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I want to put on record the approach that the government will take in relation to the amendment we're presently debating but also the amendments foreshadowed by Senator Shoebridge. We'll be opposing them, and I wanted to set out the reasons briefly. I understand that Senator Fawcett and his office have consulted and briefed Minister Conroy and his office about the bill and the approach more broadly. I want to acknowledge that and acknowledge the constructive way that you have engaged with the government about the bill. As Senator Brown explained on behalf of the government in the second reading debate, the government supports the intent of this bill. Capability acquisition and sustainment decisions should be appropriately informed by test and evaluation. However, the government is already acting to address the issues that this bill seeks to solve, and the way this bill seeks to pursue these objectives would lead to a suite of negative consequences. In particular, the creation of new agencies runs the risk of duplicating functions, of spreading already finite and limited test and evaluation resources, of increasing existing workforce pressures, of undermining accountable officers' ability to ensure that systems and capabilities meet Defence requirements, of increasing Defence budgetary pressure and of creating a monopoly, as it allows a large company to regulate test and evaluation standards in a niche area where only a small community has the capability to understand all the detail, Given these potential consequences, the government unfortunately cannot support this bill. The amendments proposed by Senators Fawcett and Shoebridge do not solve these underlying concerns, so the government is not in a position to support those either. However, I reiterate the point I made earlier that the government supports the intent of the bill. Robust capability assurance is essential. The concern is that this bill will interrupt good progress being made by our government towards reshaping the culture within Defence and our long-term plan to build a sovereign test and evaluation enterprise. The former government had almost a decade to fix test and evaluation, and they never seriously put forward the ideas in the bill. Thanks to our government's interventions, reforms are in place to improve test and evaluation in Defence. Minister Conroy and the government welcome discussion with senator on how to deliver elements of this bill within existing bodies. 10:31 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia The thing I love about the committee process in the Senate is that you do get the opportunity for exchange across the chamber, and I thank the minister for her comments, but I do recognise that they are largely repeating the same talking points that Defence used and has obviously provided to the government about their concerns around the bill, and I want to comment briefly on those. In terms of the accountable officer piece, if you look at Defence's evidence to the committee, they highlight that accountable officers need accurate test and evaluation in order to fulfil their duty. History has shown that, despite numerous reform efforts under both sides of politics over a couple of decades, those internal reforms have not led to a consistent and transparent communication of risk to those accountable officers. This bill takes best practice from our AUKUS partners so that accountable officers can in fact discharge their duties consistently and effectively. So, the objection that the minister has raised, which echoes that raised by Defence, doesn't recognise the purpose of the bill and the reality of what has occurred in Defence over decades. So Minister, thank you for the very gracious way you said that, but it's actually not technically correct. Nor do I have any confidence that yet another round of internal reform within Defence will allow those accountable officers to make informed decisions based on risk. In terms of the duplication, that's another claim that was put forward by Defence through the inquiry process. But, as some expert witnesses highlighted, this statutory body embraces and utilises existing resources more effectively through coordination, supervision and training, and then the outcome is transparently reported. That means it's more effective than having groups spend half their time fighting for resources, trying to have their voices heard. Defence and almost all the witnesses highlighted that there is a deficit of suitably trained people in uniform. And the witnesses were united in their comment that this agency was the best opportunity for Defence to grow an experienced and sustainable test and evaluation workforce. So the expert advice from witnesses, including some people who are very senior in Defence in terms of their careers, was that this agency, far from duplicating and making things inefficient, would actually make existing resources more effective and efficient and would be the basis for growing a more sustainable base going forward. On the monopoly side, I have consulted with some industry players who gave evidence about what the committee is looking to put forward through this amendment, and they agree that this amendment satisfies their concerns and that they have no concerns about the potential for monopolistic behaviour given that the Defence Capability Assurance Agency is a Commonwealth agency. The standards are set as a service by a company contracted engaged to do that, but the agency is what is engaged with industry if more capacity or particular expertise is required from industry that the ADF or Defence can't provide. Minister, thank you for your contribution, but I want to note that each of the points you've listed come from the talking points from Defence, which have been quite comprehensively rebutted through the committee process and the evidence presented. I repeat my request that the government not just adopt a static position of opposing the bill but embrace the principles and see how we can work to create something that is actually appropriately skilled and appropriately independent and that reports within an appropriately transparent effectiveness everywhere through the chain of decision-makers involved in defence procurement and materiel. 10:36 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales It's mystifying to me why the government is opposing these amendments. The government says it opposes the bill but the amendments put forward by Senator Fawcett greatly reduce the scope of the bill, so you'd think that would be the thing. Also, the only material change it makes other than reducing the scope of the bill is to put in an express provision that ensures competitiveness. Now, why would the government oppose that? I know those were the minister's speaking notes, but what possible rationale does the government have for opposing amendment (6) on Senator Fawcett's sheets, which is purely designed to ensure there's not anticompetitive behaviour in the process? You may not like the overall bill, but why on earth would you oppose amendments that reduce the scope of a bill you don't like and that put in something that is expressly designed to protect competition in the space? I know the speaking notes have come from the minister's office, but the problem is that the minister's office doesn't seem to add any value to the speaking notes that he gets from the department. That's kind of the problem here. There seems to be no distinction between the government and the department. Minister Marles is just a cipher for whatever Secretary Moriarty and the department tell him; there's no value added. Why wouldn't the minister's office have had a look at this and had some kind of independent view about it? What's the point of having a minister if all they do is transmit what the department says without any critical analysis? In term in terms of opposing the Greens' amendments—I will speak briefly to foreshadow what our amendments are. Amendment No. 1 requires in the procurement sector that Defence have regard to Australia's international human rights obligations and also to the public interest. Why on earth is the Labor Albanese government opposing an amendment that says that, on defence procurement, there should be regard to Australia's international human rights obligations and the public interest? Why doesn't the Albanese government want the public interest considered on procurement? Why doesn't the Albanese Labor government want Australia's international human rights obligations considered on defence procurement? International human rights obligations come up all the time—for example, cluster munitions and land mines. Why would you oppose that? I know those are the notes that the minister in this place has and it's probably what defence has, because they have a reflexive opposition to stuff, but what possible value did Minister Marles add? On what basis is Minister Marles directing the government here to say, 'No, we don't want to consider international human rights obligations and we don't want to consider the public interest in procurement'? Why oppose that? It's bizarre. It's irrational. Or it's just a dangerous lack—everything is done by remote control. Literally, why are Minister Marles and his office there if they don't critically consider this? The other amendment that the Greens put forward—and I still can't understand why it's being opposed—is to ensure that, before there's an agreement between the defence capability agency and an entity or a person, all reasonable steps are taken to ensure there's no conflict of interest. Why oppose that? Why is the Albanese Labor government opposing a provision that's aiming to get conflicts of interest out of defence procurement? Again, I don't blame the minister here. They've got speaking notes that have been given to them by Minister Marles. But what is Minister Marles doing opposing that amendment? Again, I don't think there's any value added in that office. It no doubt just came from the department. 'Oppose it. Here's a random set of speaking notes. We've got it under control. We're doing a review. Don't you worry about it. We'll get the patrol vessel commissioned maybe by the end of 2024 or maybe by 2025. We'll get a Hunter class frigate together by—oh, we'll come back to you on that. We're chopping up the helicopters and burying them in the outback. It's all under control. It's all fine. We've got reviews. It'll all be fine.' Why have a defence minister if that's what they do? Why be there? I ask the minister: can you articulate why you're opposing the coalition's amendments, and can you give a rational, considered reason about why you're opposing the Greens' amendments? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 296215 The question is that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 2289 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'll put the second part of the amendments on sheet 2289. The question is that part 4 stand as printed. Question negatived. 10:43 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2325: (1) Clause 11, page 12 (after line 18), at the end of subclause (4), add: ; and (d) have regard to Australia's international human rights obligations; and (e) have regard to the public interest. (2) Clause 19, page 15 (after line 18), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Before entering into an agreement with a person or entity under subsection (1), the Defence Capability Assurance Agency must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the person or entity does not have any interests (pecuniary or otherwise) that could conflict with the proper performance of the functions in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c). I just want to reiterate that amendment (1) requires Defence to have regard to Australia's international human rights obligations and the public interest in procurement. We think that's important. For reasons that haven't been articulated, the Albanese Labor government is opposing that. It's bizarre, but that's the situation. Amendment (2) requires that, for any person or entity who enters an agreement with the Defence Capability Assurance Agency, there must be assurances there are no conflicts of interest. Again, we think that's important, but for reasons that I can't understand the Albanese Labor government is opposing that too. Maybe they've changed their mind; we live in hope. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments and an amendment to the title; report adopted. Third Reading 17 10:45 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 17

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 17 10:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Ladies and gentlemen and businesses across Australia, here we go again. Welcome to 2024. The Albanese government, just as it did in 2022 and again in 2023, now, at the very beginning of 2024, is giving you a slap in the face. Why do I say that? Because, for the business community across Australia, it does not matter what size of business you are—whether you are a large business or a medium business. It probably does actually matter if you're a small business, because, quite frankly, I do not know, based on the feedback that I have received from businesses across Australia, particularly small businesses, how you are expected to cope—when you are already drowning under significant pressure from rapidly rising costs et cetera, all due to the Albanese government's policy decisions—with what is now the third tranche of industrial relations legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. So, as I said, welcome to 2024. This is the Albanese government saying, 'Happy new year,' to businesses across Australia. We expect a lot from businesses across Australia. We expect them to continue employing Australians. We expect them to prosper, to grow and to create more jobs. But, on behalf of Mr Albanese and the Australian Labor Party, let me be very clear: we are not going to put in place the economic framework or the policy decisions that are going to allow them to do this. In fact, what we are going to do for the third time—we did it in 2022 and 2023 and are now doing it in 2024—is whack them with another raft of job-destroying, complex, confusing and, of course, union-friendly industrial relations changes. Well, Mr Albanese, guess what: the businesses across Australia are saying they don't like this, and it's not because they don't want to comply with the law, prosper, grow, create more jobs and pay higher sustainable wages. It is quite literally because they know—since they go in to work every day and employ people—that, under the first, second and now third tranches of industrial relations legislation, this legislation is going to continue to harm them. That is what the employers across Australia are telling us. They tell us that this legislation—which, as I said, is the third tranche, not the first—will impact the prospects of the employees that Labor purports to protect. Let us not forget who the employers of Australia are. I know who they are. I know those on the coalition side know who they are, but obviously Labor and, in particular, the Greens—and, I have to say, some of the crossbench—clearly don't know who they are. They are the job creators of this country. They are the people who employ millions and millions of Australians across every region, every town, every sector and every city in our great country. They get up every morning and they provide Australians with the jobs that they so desperately need. Mr Albanese whacked them in 2022 and whacked them again in 2023—and happy new year 2024: let's go for the triple whammy. If you're lucky, Mr Albanese, you might actually take a few of them out. I'm being sarcastic there. Let me tell you what the employers of Australia are saying about these changes. It's very simple: the changes are going to add additional costs to their businesses. Mr Albanese and Labor don't seem to understand or, alternatively, they don't care. I will probably go with the latter, actually: they don't care. They don't seem to understand what happens when you add additional costs to business. Let me tell you what happens. This is what the businesses have told us will happen. They pass those costs onto the community, in the first instance, or, secondly, if they can't pass the costs on—guess what?—they have to lose employees from their business. So what you have is further costs passed onto the community or, alternatively, job losses. Wow, that is a great combination going into 2024. Based on the state of the economy, I wouldn't have thought that the community in Australia need further costs passed onto them. The reality that they face, 18 months after the election of the Albanese government, is that anyone who goes into a shopping centre or a shop to purchase something feels the impact of food inflation. And you are feeling it because, under the Labor government of Mr Albanese, food has actually gone up nine per cent. Don't talk to people about housing. All they'll say to you is (a) 'I can't get a house,' and (b) 'If I'm looking to get one, property prices have gone up 12 per cent.' What about the great promise Mr Albanese made to Australians prior the election, 'If I'm elected I will reduce your energy bill by $275'? They can't even mention the number '275' now because electricity, under the Labor government, has gone up more than 23 per cent. Gas has gone up more than 29 per cent. Let's talk about interest rate rises. After 12 interest rate rises under Labor, interest rates are at their highest since 2011. Let's translate that into what the average Australian family with a mortgage of $750,000 now needs to pay. They have to pay a not insignificant, I would have thought, extra $24,000 per year. On top of all of those increased costs, the first big piece of legislation the Albanese government wants to deal with this year will whack businesses across Australia with additional cost, additional complexity and complete, total and utter confusion which, as the businesses have told us, will only mean they will pass on those costs to consumers—the poor Australians who are currently struggling under the cost-of-living pressures. Alternatively, if small businesses in particular can't pass the costs on anymore, the only alternative they will have is to sack the workers. So increased costs and job losses are actually going to be the result of this legislation. One of the things that has been missing from the industrial relations agenda under the Albanese government is the one thing that an economic agenda should incentivise—that is, increasing productivity, or, as I like to say, prosperity; you increase prosperity for all Australians. The link to productivity is the key. The more productive we are as a society, the more Australians can be employed—and you're actually growing businesses—and the more prosperous these businesses can be. And what does that then mean? They can actually pay higher and, the key here is, more sustainable wages. But, again, tranche 1, whack; tranche 2, whack, whack; and now we get to tranche 3, the triple whammy—productivity is not talked about by the Albanese Labor government. There is so much that is wrong with this bill. Unfortunately, given the time today, we're only going to get a short amount of time to talk about it. But I've got to deal with the right to disconnect. This is fantastic, seriously! I see Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, has come out today and backed in that right to disconnect. Let's talk about this right to disconnect. It wasn't talked about prior to the election; that's not unusual for the Albanese government. It certainly wasn't raised in any of the non-consultation that the government had on any of their industrial relations bills. In fact, Senator O'Sullivan, do you recall, at any of the committee hearings, looking at the legislation and actually saying: 'There's a section on the right to disconnect. Can we interrogate it?'? It's not in the bill. You've got to love that, don't you! So we have gone through a sham committee process to look at the bill, only to find out that we haven't even seen a key part of it; it has been dreamed up by the Albanese Labor government. They haven't consulted on it. They haven't spoken to businesses. None of us have seen it—well, maybe Senator Pocock has seen it—and, apparently, it's going to pass through the Senate by the end of this week. This is another one you're going to love about this government, seriously: what did Mr Albanese, prior to the election, say about transparency? He made it very clear: his government was going to be the most transparent government this country has ever seen. There is a word that I cannot use in this place, but everyone knows what it is—there's a saying of 'something, something, pants on fire'; I think it's pretty obvious what that is. He completely, totally and utterly misled the Australian people in terms of that. What do we know about the right to disconnect? In the first instance, there has been no scrutiny because we haven't seen it. We haven't been able to say, 'Hey, hold on, can we work through this and what the implications are for business?' We know that this supposed new right will see the hours of the day where businesses are able to work with others across Australia, or even globally, potentially made more unworkable. I would have thought that, in a global economy, one would be putting in place legislative requirements that make us more competitive, not requirements that are going to make it harder to do business. Mr Albanese is always out there telling Western Australians, my home state, that he is a great friend of theirs. I have to say, again, two words followed by 'pants on fire'. I just don't think Mr Albanese— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order, Senator Cash! Please resume your seat. We're at the beginning of the year, and there have been very clear directions about unparliamentary language. While you haven't used a word that's not supposed to be used, I think the implication there was pretty clear—so it's taking the language in context. I ask you, for the benefit of the chamber, to withdraw, and then I'll give you the call. Senator Cash I0M I'm not quite sure what I'm withdrawing, so you're going to have to explain to me what I'm withdrawing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Cash, I'm not going to debate. I'm asking you to assist the chamber and withdraw. Senator Pratt I0T Are your pants on fire, Senator Cash—that you don't know what you're talking about? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Pratt, if you could resist— Senator Cash I0M If it assists with the facilitation of the chamber, I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Thank you, Senator Cash. You have the call. Senator CASH I0M However, it's pretty clear the Labor Party—you try and expose Mr Albanese for misleading Australians, for blatantly saying things prior to the election that he had absolutely no intention of following through on, and guess what? They are going to make sure we don't get to even talk about that in the Senate. That is the type of government you currently have in place. It is a government that, prior to the election, talked big about transparency and talked big about promises. I tell you, though, the minute they get into power and the minute they have the numbers, they are duplicitous. That is what they are. They are deceitful and they work against Australians every single step of the way. That includes Western Australians. You only have to see the front page of the West Australian on Monday 5 February: 'Rarely open state. WA fears being left behind in disconnect shake-up'. Then you only have to read the editorial by the editor of the West Australian, Anthony De Ceglie. What does he say on behalf of Western Australians to Mr Albanese, the members of the Labor government and the Labor members in Western Australia, who are not standing up for Western Australians, who are rolling over and having their little tummies tickled like little puppy dogs smiling at their master? He writes: Yet again, Western Australia has been forced to remind the rest of the country of its importance to the nation's economy as proposed "right to disconnect" laws threaten to slash businesses' operating hours in half. That is the contempt that the Prime Minister of this country has for the great state of Western Australia. I say to the Prime Minister: you might actually want to look at your bottom line. You might actually want to look at what Western Australia and Western Australians, through sheer hard work and effort, contribute to the economy of this country. Instead of saying that you get us, why don't you, for once, put in place legislation that doesn't attack us and that does not attack businesses across Australia but allows us to do what we do best, not just in WA but in this country. All businesses want to do is prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians, and you are killing them. 11:02 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales It's difficult to understand why workers in WA don't want a right to disconnect. What's unique, in Senator Cash's view, about workers in WA? If you really sit down and talk with them—I know the people I talk to in my home state of New South Wales, particularly young workers, are often being chased home by work emails and calls from the boss. It could be 10 o'clock at night or 8 am on a Saturday. We should give those workers a right to disconnect from work. It's mystifying to me. What's so unique about WA, in Senator Cash's view, that young workers don't want a right to disconnect? Of course they do. Perhaps the reason for the angry opposition to a basic right like that for workers is that, if you only listen to a small group of large employers, you probably don't hear those concerns. You probably don't hear those concerns by everyday Australians who actually want their job to end at some point in the day. They want to be able to spend time focusing on their family and their friends without the constant intrusion of work. I'm pretty certain it's the same for young workers, especially, but also for workers across the field in Perth as it is in Sydney. To just ignore that and to pretend it's not an issue, I think, is pretty disrespectful or shows a real disconnect. The Greens are on record as supporting this bill and wanting it to go further. We are supporting this bill and acknowledging that it goes some way to giving Australia a fairer and more equitable industrial relations system that really focuses on the rights of working people; to having a system that gets away from the idea that the market will determine everything and that workers are just little widgets that get put into the economy; and to actually ensuring that peoples' rights as workers, as employees, are respected and that they're treated as people—not as little economic widgets that can just be squeezed, manipulated, sacked, reengaged and contracted out but actually as people. I think that's what the Australian public want us to do. We support those provisions in this bill that will be delivering real benefits and protections for Australian workers. I want to particularly focus on some of the standards that have been put in place for gig workers and the stronger pathway to permanency for casuals. You wouldn't realise it listening to the contributions from the coalition, but it's a fact that one-third of Australian workers are in some kind of insecure, unpredictable work. They're either on rolling, short-term contracts; they're gig workers; or they're casuals. One-third of Australian workers. That insecurity echoes through so much of their life. You don't have predictability about when you're working, so how do you organise the kids if you've got a family? You don't have predictability about the income you're going to get, so the bank won't give you a mortgage, so you can't even get a start on the crazy housing market in this country. You don't have predictability about the hours you're going to be working, so you can't plan with your friends or your partner what you're going to do on the weekend. And you don't have predictability about the income you're getting, so you don't even know if you're going to be able to put food on the table at the end of the month. Of course we have an obligation to do what we can to put that predictability in to improve those rights and to give people certainty in their life that they've got enough work, their conditions are sufficient, they're going to be protected, they're going to be able to put food on the table, they're going to be able to look after their kids and they're going to be able to afford housing. Of course we have that obligation. Some of the work I did as a state MP, in particular on gig workers and the insecurity of gig workers, comes to my mind in this debate. One of the issues we looked at at a state level was statutory workers comp insurance for gig workers. The reason we looked at that was that gig workers were being excluded from workers compensation. They were told that they weren't employees. When we drilled down into what was actually happening, particularly for delivery workers—people delivering Uber Eats or delivering your parcels—they were getting paid, at best, barely minimum rates. They had totally unpredictable work hours and often incredibly dangerous time frames in which to get product from either a restaurant to a home or from a distribution centre to a home. They were putting themselves at risk, largely to provide convenience for consumers. The workers compensation scheme at most state levels kind of ignores them. They're not actually workers. They're not actually covered. When they were in, tragically, fatal accidents or very serious accidents, they were just getting nothing. Some of them were gig workers here on temporary visas. They would literally get seriously injured and then just have their visa cancelled because they couldn't work. Tragically—and I saw this happen more than once—if they were killed doing this gig work, then no workers compensation rights at all and grieving families would have to come and collect their bodies. Do we have an obligation to protect those people? Absolutely, we do. Do we have an obligation to put protections in so that gig workers have rights and are treated like people, not just like some sort of disposable economic widget? Of course we do. This bill goes some way to doing that, and of course we would support it. A right to safe work; a right to a minimum wage; if you're casual, a right to seek permanency; and pushing back against that widespread job insecurity. I want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues Senator Barbara Pocock and the Greens leader, Adam Bandt, to try and push this bill further: to put in improvements on things like intractable bargaining, which I will address in a second; strengthening those protections for casual workers; and giving workers that right to disconnect. I want to commend their work. They've been forensic, they've been consultative, and I think they have done a great job in ensuring that these issues have progressed as best we can during the bill. Of course, one of the other key issues we should be looking at in this legislation is getting rid of superannuation wage theft. You won't hear a thing about this from the coalition. It's almost as though that's just a cost of doing business from the coalition's perspective. The ATO estimates that workers missed out on almost $3½ billion in unpaid superannuation in 2019-20, and it's probably grown since then. That's $3½ billion stolen from working people—stolen from their retirement funds. It's a further attack on their job security and their economic security. Of course, the coalition did nothing about it. The Australian Greens strongly believe that superannuation theft should be in the same category as wage theft, and we'll be pushing for amendments that criminalise superannuation theft. Why does a young 14-year-old kid who steals a Mars Bar from a service station face the prospect of going to jail under the current rules, but a corporation that steals 20 to 30 million bucks or an employer that steals $10,000 of superannuation from a worker face no criminal penalty? Why is it illegal to steal a Mars Bar but not illegal to steal $3½ billion worth of superannuation? We can't understand and we think it should be criminalised. When it comes to casual workers, for over a decade the Australian Greens have been pressing for greater protections for casual workers. We know they're often in precarious employment situations. I want to focus on one set of workers that are sometimes forgotten. Sometimes it's ignored because you wouldn't believe it unless you looked at the data, but teachers, including in public schools all across the country, and university lecturers and academics often face this kind of double-barrelled disadvantage. Teachers and lecturers are often on these fixed-term contracts and often get excluded from the definition of casual worker, so of course we need a broader definition of casual worker. No one indicia, whether it's a pattern of work or otherwise, should be taken to determine whether or not someone is casual or part time. The reforms do go some way to say that. They say it's not just one indicia that can be determinative. But we are still concerned that those academics—some of whom have been working at the same university in the same job for 20 years on a contract that starts on 1 February and ends on 15 December—have had that same contract for 20 years. The contract is designed to avoid paying them annual leave or giving them job security. They've had that same contract for 20 years. Of course they need greater protections for those fixed-term contracts. I don't think we're there yet with this bill. Workers in schools and universities like that who aren't ongoing employees are often classified as fixed-term employees or casuals, and we need to ensure that this bill protects them. I want to commend the work of the National Tertiary Education Union and I want to commend the work of the New South Wales Teachers Federation in my state in drawing these concerns to the government's attention and to the parliament's attention. We need a solution to it. When it comes to intractable bargaining, yes, there were the fair work legislation amendments in 2022 in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs Better Pay) Act. The rationale behind those provisions that allow the Fair Work Commission to intervene in bargaining that's reached an impasse is to prevent protracted bargaining disputes by giving the Fair Work Commission some kind of compulsory arbitration. We understand the rationale behind that, but the practice has been that employers are willing to just hold out and offer nothing or push for even lesser standards than in the existing agreement. They basically stare down employees with the aim of driving down conditions at work instead of driving up conditions. This bill proposes reforms that put an additional requirement for the Fair Work Commission, before it makes an intractable bargaining order, particularly when it's replacing an existing bargaining agreement, to say that that will only be allowed when it includes terms that are not less favourable to each employee and union than a term of an existing enterprise agreement that deals with the matter. So you can't have the employer just stonewalling and saying nothing and then applying to the commission and saying: 'Okay. Nothing has happened in the last 12 months. I want an intractable bargaining order and I am now going to push down wages and conditions.' It effectively is an intention to force some kind of good-faith negotiation. I know there is criticism of the inquiry, but, from my memory, it was kicked off sometime in September and went through until January. It was a substantial inquiry. It got a lot of submissions. At one of the inquiry's hearings—I think it was on 10 November—the ACTU president affirmed support for this kind of reform. I think her evidence was that the change will make a big difference to make the system work. What is difficult to know, apart from some sort of ideological basis, is why the opposition continues to oppose that. Senator Barbara Pocock and Greens leader Adam Bandt have pushed to improve those intractable bargaining provisions, fixing that loophole in the arbitration system, protecting workers and putting some integrity back into the bargaining process, and I commend them for their work. I will finish on the right to disconnect. There may not have been some kind of election promise on this from the government, but one of the key things you should do in parliament is respond to concerns that are coming from the community and listen to the community. This issue about the right to disconnect is really alive out there if you talk to, particularly, young workers. They want to know when work ends. They want to have a right not to open up their email. They want a right to a weekend and a right to spend time with their friends and family and not constantly have work in their head. I look forward to this parliament granting a solution on that—a solution that doesn't just listen to the coalition and a handful of corporate interests but actually listens to the millions of workers who want us to get this right and want that right to disconnect. I look forward to this parliament landing on a solution that gives it. 11:17 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. It finishes what the Albanese government started when we came to office. It is a new day in Australia for working families and their right to dignity and fair conditions at work under the Albanese Labor government. When we came to government, we passed the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill, which has transformed outcomes for the lowest paid Australians. We know that our efforts in delivering for workers is never finished, so we continue that journey together again today. This is why the Albanese Labor government brought into this place the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. This bill completes the work of the original bill. It will ensure that no worker slips through the cracks of IR loopholes and a corporate race to the bottom on working conditions. For too long well-intentioned rules and regulations have been left vulnerable, with bad employers undercutting workers and taking their livelihoods away from them. We recognised this pressing reality in 2022 and swiftly enacted the secure jobs and better pay legislation. These reforms were nothing short of life-changing for Australia's lowest paid and disproportionately female workers, introducing modest mechanisms that have worked to increase wages, add job security and equalise the gender pay gap. That includes in two of the sectors that I have been involved in and advocating for since I came to this place—that is, early childhood education and aged care. At that time, those opposite, as usual, were against ordinary workers and their families. They told Australians, with a straight face, that the sky would fall in and that inflation would spiral because of our reasonable measures. What happened, instead, was the opposite. Jobs growth has been the strongest for any government's first year, rates of industrial action have fallen dramatically and inflation has continued to moderate. This is all while Australians have seen their wages grow at the highest rate for more than a decade. There is no doubt that we will again hear the same fearmongering from those opposite who enthusiastically claim that low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economy while they were in government. Again, we must ignore that for the bile that it is. It is in their DNA. They don't care about Australian workers; they just care about their mates. In relation to the substantive amendments, closing the loopholes does precisely what it says it does. It will eliminate cracks in the system so that it functions as intended to protect Australian workers from exploitation. It will give Australian workers the peace of mind that they will be subject to minimum standards that both employees and employers have already agreed to. It does nothing more and nothing less, and anyone here telling Australians otherwise is selling a dangerous lie. This bill has the potential to empower working families with dignified conditions and working stability. It is fair, and it is reasonable. We can stop the corporate race to the bottom and ensure that workers are paid properly. It establishes a choice of security for casual workers, protecting gig workers on the road from danger and upholding the primacy of workplace agreements. At its core, this is a bill to keep Australians safe at work and to pay them fairly for the work that they do. It is about stopping poor work practices and ending exploitation in the workplace. In relation to casual employment in this bill, these amendments clarify that an employee who works a regular pattern of work can be a casual if there is no firm commitment to continuing indefinite work. To highlight this factor, last year we had a delegation of workers come to this House, and I heard yet again the story that there was a gentleman who was working on the north-west coast of Tasmania who had been working casually for 17 years. He wanted a full-time job. He wanted a permanent job. He wanted security. He wanted to be able to go and get a home loan, but he couldn't because he didn't have security of employment. This bill will change that. That is life changing for his family. If he chooses to seek to have a permanent job, then he will be able to have that with all the protections and security that come with that. The Albanese Labor government is standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees. We are closing the loophole that leaves people stuck classified as casuals when they actually work permanent, regular hours. This will help casual workers who have a regular work arrangement, giving them greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security, if desired. They don't have to, but it's about choice. This is all about giving workers choice. We need to have a minimum standard to make sure Australia doesn't become a nation where you have to rely on tips to survive. We all look to America as this great international country—the powerhouse that it is. I've been to America and seen 80-year-old people packing groceries in a supermarket during the day and having to have a cleaning job as well to try and survive. They do that because there is no security like we have here in Australia. This bill continues that hard work and the tradition of the Labor government to ensure that we protect workers rights at the same time as working with business and employers. This change will allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work, such as gig work. Just because someone is working in the gig economy doesn't mean that they end up being paid less than they would if they were an employee. We're not trying to turn people into employees when they don't want to be. A whole lot of gig workers like the flexibility they get from using this technology. They like that type of work. It allows them to continue to study. But they should have that choice. And, if you are a gig worker, you still deserve to have safety and the same terms and conditions as the person who is an employee in a company. We know there is a direct link between a low rate of pay and safety. It leads to a situation where workers take risks so that they get more work because they're struggling to make ends meet. This bill ends that. When we went through the pandemic, if you had COVID and you were a gig worker and you didn't work, you didn't get paid. Remember back when we were all saying thank you to the frontline workers, those truckies that were delivering food to keep food on our tables and retail workers in supermarkets on the front line? We were all singing their praises. But did the former government do anything about raising their pay and conditions and giving them security? No, they didn't, because that's not a part of their DNA. The Albanese Labor government is also taking action to ensure that the trucking industry is safe, sustainable and viable. Thank you to the Transport Workers Union. Again, they were in this place this week, and their advocates had the opportunity to explain what it's like to be a gig worker and how difficult it is to be a truck driver. And, importantly, they were bringing with them their peak bodies and the sector of owners and drivers. They were talking to us and expressing how difficult it is. Let's face it: without the trucking industry and without truck drivers, we won't be able to sustain ourselves as a nation. As part of the government's legislation, the Fair Work Commission will have the power, as I said, to set minimum standards for the road transport industry as well. Setting standards in the road transport industry will save lives. Just remember: when drivers are working extended hours—because if they don't work they don't get paid—it's you, it's me, it's my family and it's your families that are on the road. They're the ones who are as much at risk as the truck drivers because—let's face it—most of the truck drivers are driving these big semitrailers but it's your family, it's my family and it's the families of people out there that are on the road. This is crucially important to this sector. For too long we've heard stories of the deadly impact of cost-cutting and unrealistic deadlines, as starkly illustrated by the Without trucks Australia stops Senate report. The commission will be required to ensure any minimum standards do not adversely affect the viability and competitiveness of the owner-drivers. These vital reforms would not have been possible in the first place if it were not for the work of Minister Tony Burke within the Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio, as well as the tireless efforts of the union movement in fighting for their workers and their members. I want to put on record my thanks to Minister Burke and draw attention to the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, better known as the SDA, for all the wonderful advocacy that they've done for those within the retail sector, who are mostly casual workers; to the Transport Workers Union; to the ACTU; to all unions across the country; and, more broadly, to the labour movement. It's because of your hard work and the work of the Albanese Labor government, who have been listening and know only too well how important this legislation is, that we are here today and are going to bring dignity and safety back into Australians' workplaces. It won't matter whether you're on a factory floor, whether you're driving a truck, whether you're a gig worker, whether you're working in aged care or whether you're working in retail. Australian workers deserve nothing less than the highest protection at work for their safety so that they get to go home every night to their families. This legislation tries to stop the exploitation at the hands of greedy employers who have been taking advantage of them for far too long. It's not just new migrants to this country who have been exploited. It's Australians. I want to assure the Australian people that you can always rely on the Australian Labor Party and the Albanese Labor government to stand up for working Australians. We are the party of fairness. We are the party of dignity at work. We are the party of the labour movement and the union movement. None of us who have come into this place—and I didn't come from a union background—have ever forgotten where we've come from and the values of what Labor stands for and what the union movement stands for. When I and my older siblings were going out into the workforce, my mother and father told us, 'There are two things you must do when you go to work: you must work hard and do an honest day's work and then expect an honest day's pay, and you should vote Labor.' The third one was, 'You should join your union.' Guess what? Each of my grandchildren, when they turn 14, gets a membership form for the Labor Party. So I'm honouring that, Mum and Dad. Fighting for fair pay and conditions and fighting for workers' rights and a fair go is a noble quality. It is what makes the Labor Party. It is a great privilege. I'm so proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government. To the unions, like the TWU, the AWU, the SDA—all the unions that have been coming to this place, visiting us in our electorates and talking at our conferences: we have heard you. We have listened to all the delegations of workers that have taken their time. Quite honestly, for a lot of these workers, like some I was hearing from yesterday, it's a big deal to come to this place and to talk to politicians if you're never done it before. I keep telling them we usually don't eat people! We're just like you. We just want to hear your true story because your truth is what is important. It's our responsibility as Labor government members, whether we're in the Senate or the other place, to listen to and respond to the concerns. There will be amendments to this legislation. I am encouraged that we will get support in this chamber. This is such a fundamental change for Australian workers and for young people going out for their first jobs. My second-eldest grandson has just started work, and coincidentally he's working for a well-known supermarket chain. Yes, he's joined the SDA. He listened to his 'oma' when I said to get a job. He had a choice of two jobs. He chose the supermarket chain. I said: 'You work really hard. When you're offered a shift, you turn up every time and you give 110 per cent—but also join your union, because you need that protection.' I commend this legislation. As I said, I'm very proud to commend Minister Tony Burke, the Prime Minister and my fellow Labor members both in this place and the other place, and I commend this to the chamber. 11:31 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No.2) Bill 2023. Firstly, I move second reading amendment on sheet 2359 on behalf of Senator Cash: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) is of the opinion that consideration of the amendments in the bill relating to the road transport industry should be deferred until after the conclusion of the current ACCC inquiry into Australia's supermarket sector; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) amend the bill to remove the elements of Part 16 of the bill that relate to the road transport industry so that those amendments may be dealt with in a separate bill, and (ii) direct the ACCC to specifically consider those amendments as part of its inquiry into Australia's supermarket sector". Without doubt, this is the single worst piece of industrial relations policy that has been seen in this country for over three decades. This legislation is nothing more than a pursuit of hyperfixated obsession of left-wing ideology. Let me be crystal clear: this is arcane and draconian legislation. It looks in the eye of the industrial relations legacy of the Hawke and Keating governments and tears it asunder. It's nothing more than ensuring that the traditional owners of the Australian Labor Party are kept happy at the next federal election. It's nothing more than trying to keep alive the dying embers of their trade union allies. It was the poet Alfred Tennyson who said, 'Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.' Surely, when it comes to industrial relations policy, this government possesses neither. This country is confronting a cost-of-living crisis not seen in a generation. For most Australians, it's the first time that they have encountered such rises in their cost of living. The Albanese government has blamed the previous coalition governments. It's blamed the Ukraine war, the former Reserve Bank Governor and, indeed, the Israel-Hamas war, but, if it looked itself in the mirror, it would see where the responsibility lies. Instead of addressing rampant inflation, interest rate pressure and a sustained period of low productivity, this government thinks that the best step forward right now is to grow union membership and increase their sphere of influence in the Australian workplace. If you were to momentarily close your eyes, you would have thought that we had returned to the early 1970s, when Jim Cairns and Rex Connor were running around driving the economy onto a rocky shoal during the time of the discredited Whitlam government. If it was the intent of this government to mobilise the business sector, if government's motivation was to unify conservatives, this bill goes a long way to achieving that. In my time in this place, I seriously doubt another piece of industrial relations policy will energise its opponents like this bill has done. For some time, I've been talking about labour productivity and the government's lack of focus and discussion on it. Labour productivity plays a critical role within our economy in lowering inflation. Productivity growth is a fundamental key to long-term prosperity. It has delivered Australia the higher living standard and quality of life that we as a society enjoy today, yet the original bill mentions the word 'productivity' only twice. There is scarcely a mention of productivity. This government is lost at sea when it comes to productivity. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who is very fond of sound bites and one-liners, did not mention it once in his second reading speech. It's no wonder, given the unions' hatred of the word and their longstanding loathing of the Productivity Commission. The Prime Minister has gone missing altogether when it comes to discussing this important economic measurement. In fact, he has basically handballed the economy to the Treasurer and said, 'Good luck.' The Prime Minister knows that the long-term forecast for inflation returning to the two to three per cent band is in 2025, after the next federal election, so he might as well damage the future prospects of his Treasurer at the same time as ruining the economy. One thing is crystal clear. At the next election, one thing will be front and centre for all Australians: are we better off than we were three years ago? The evidence would suggest clearly not. This government likes to boast that this bill is about growing wages. Without stating the obvious, of course we all want higher wages, but this government is presenting it like some magic pudding, as if we could all benefit from higher wages without achieving higher productivity. It is akin to the theory of all those who once believed that simply printing more money would get rid of hyperinflation. Herein lies the government's problem: Treasury is also telling them that, if the unit labour price keeps going higher while productivity growth is negligible, inflation won't come down from the three-decade high we've seen under this government's watch. The government's magic bullet theory is to get the trade unions infiltrating the Australian workplace and ramp up union delegate rights, and they think that somehow this is going to improve the prosperity of Australians. We have seen that in this country before, when unions had the grip of the Australian workplace, and we know that it didn't end well. The Education and Employment Legislation Committee, of which I am the deputy chair, held seven public hearings across the country, and time and time again we heard from stakeholders about the negative consequences of this bill and the impact that it would have on the cost of living, inflation and, more broadly, the economy. We know that this bill will actually increase costs for Australians. Food delivery platform Menulog have said that they will have to increase their charges. They estimate that the average costs will go up by $15 per delivery. This significantly increases to $39 if the calculated per hour rate is used as applied by the explanatory memorandum. Uber undertook its own impact modelling. It revealed that rideshare and delivery fee prices across the country would increase by 60 per cent and 85 per cent respectively. Higher prices will make rideshare and delivery services more expensive for consumers. The pizza which the minister claims will only cost a few extra dollars more will in fact cost substantially more. I want to turn to Western Australia, my home state. This bill is a blatant attack on Western Australia. The mining industry in my state is largely non-unionised, which is not surprising given that union membership in the private sector is just eight per cent—hence why the government thinks that there is a problem. Through this bill, they have demonstrated that they see the problem as a trade union problem and as a loophole that needs to be fixed. Even worse is the fact that the federal resources minister is a Western Australian and has allowed, on her watch, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to run riot with this bill in her home state and, from what I can see, she has done nothing to stand up against the attack that this bill will make on her own home state of Western Australia. Did she speak up in the interests of her state or the industry that she purports to represent? The mining sector has largely underpinned Western Australia's success since the 1970s. Every Western Australian should be shocked and dismayed by what the Albanese Labor government is attempting to do with this bill. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia were blunt in their assessment of the impact that this bill would have on Western Australia. It told the Perth public hearing: It's no overstatement to say that these changes pose a significant threat to WA's economic prosperity. Our state is at a crossroad. We are rich in the critical minerals that will power the green revolution, like lithium, nickel, copper. But having these minerals in the ground isn't enough. In the race for global capital we need to be competitive. Aspects of this bill, combined with already onerous regulation and more to come, risk putting Australia in the too-hard basket for global investors. If that doesn't send a chill through you in this place, I don't know what will. We are competing internationally for projects to go ahead. Capital is competitive. If we're going to attract investment in this country and indeed in my home state of Western Australia, we have to be competitive on all fronts and provide a value proposition for that capital. For the benefit of those that are living over here on the east coast—I know you don't care to think too much about us on the west coast; that's coming from a Western Australian, of course—in 2021-22 the Western Australian resources industry generated $186 billion in gross product, accounting for almost half of Western Australia's economic activity. The industry's exports totalled $233.6 billion, accounting for 95 per cent of WA's goods exports and 66.1 per cent of national resources exported. It was during the Perth public hearing that the Australian Hotels Association WA told the inquiry of the 'lottery style' nature of the casual employment changes that this bill proposes. They said it was 'operationally insane'—operationally insane—for business. This is ridiculous! They asked how this would function in practice for Western Australia. They queried that. They couldn't make sense of how it would work, practically. All of this is for the sake of appeasing trade union, left-wing ideology. Federal Labor pays lip-service to Western Australia. It even appointed a Western Australian as a cabinet minister, to the important resources portfolio. But it's merely smoke and mirrors when those same elected members sit idly by while the Albanese government launches a full-scale offensive on the state's private sector employees. This bill will not benefit Western Australia, and it certainly won't help the workers in the mining industry. But it will assist the trade unions to get a foothold in an industry that predominantly has remained a non-unionised workforce. Back in September last year I was sitting here in this chamber, and Senator Ayres got up and spoke, and he boasted about this bill and the government's agenda. He said the Albanese government 'are moving from red tape for business to a red carpet for business'. That's what they were doing. If the inquiry's public hearings demonstrated one thing, it was that this government, through this bill, has laid out the red carpet not for workers in this country, not for businesses in this country and not for the Australian economy but, indeed, for the trade unions. Is it any wonder that the ACTU gleefully said: … it's very good. Finally we have turned the corner in terms of this relentless, really 30 years of either going backwards and clawing things back, to now actually going forward … Of course we would want more, but honestly the government has responded to problems that are there and they campaigned on, such as job security. The business community knows the true intent of this bill. As the Business Council of Australia summed up in its submission to the inquiry: 'This bill is unnecessary. It will return Australian workplace relations to an age of unnecessary conflict and low productivity and does not respond to the key challenges for jobs, for enterprises or for Australians facing rapidly increasing costs of living. This bill is complex, is unworkable, has not been demonstrated to achieve its policy aims and, in most areas, is not based on clearly articulated or properly evidenced need for change.' Credit to the minister for workplace relations; with this bill, and the one passed before Christmas, he has delivered big time for his trade union mates—there's no doubt about that. They will certainly be pleased with his performance and will be stamping his leadership credentials. A front seat at the next ALP national conference awaits him; there is no doubt about that. This bill has seen a proliferation of unfettered trade union power not seen in a long time, increased rights of entry and union delegates rights. Anyone would think that union membership was hovering around 80 per cent, given the weight of this bill, but it's not happening. Above all, the economic modelling represents something akin to a year 8 economics paper. The RIS was cobbled together. The way this government has presented this bill is an embarrassment. Its data limitations, its assumptions, are completely inept and completely unacceptable, given the original bill contained 800 pages. This government was not interested in knowing the full cost implications of this bill; its calculations were inept at best. This bill does nothing to benefit Australian families or reduce cost-of-living pressures, and it does everything to increase trade union influence in the workplace. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I just want to note for the record that we have a new member in the chamber—and I'm not referring to Senator Varun Ghosh, who has joined us from Western Australia. With his first appearance in the chamber, I acknowledge Amato Leslie Ciccone, who has joined his very proud father. I congratulate him and his beautiful wife, Sarah—who is with us, here in the advisers' box—on the birth of the newest recruit to the Labor Party in Victoria! 11:47 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise to speak to the significant and timely Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. This legislation presents a crucial step in us addressing the various loopholes and shortcomings that currently exist in the Fair Work Act 2009, aiming to promote fairness, equity and protection for workers across Australia. Let's be clear about this: the Albanese Labor government came to power on a platform of getting wages moving, of addressing the challenges we have seen in this country for a decade underneath the Liberal and National parties, who had a deliberate strategy of stagnating wages to affect and impact in the most negative ways on those who are on some of the lowest incomes in this country. We need to provide equity and protection for workers, and that's exactly what the Albanese Labor government is intending to do and that is exactly what this bill is aiming to do. Closing the loopholes will stop the undermining of wages and the undermining of conditions we have seen too much of over the previous decade. The Liberals and Nationals were doing everything they could to stagnate wages, disadvantage workers and impact conditions. They showed a complete and utter lack of understanding of what life is like for those workers who provide essential services across our country. These are the workers that we rely on for every aspect of our lives, and they are being treated so poorly. This legislation, which has been dragged out for months and months and months, needs to pass this chamber. They've fought against this legislation every single step of the way. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 seeks to rectify several critical issues that have caused significant issues in the labour market in this country. The bill introduces measures to provide greater certainty for casual employees and casual employers, addressing the ambiguity that surrounds the definition of casual employment and the entitlement to permanent employment benefits. I am on the employment and education standing committee in the Senate, and we have held many hearings and have heard over and over again that the sky is falling in. The idea of taking a casual worker who has worked in the same organisation—I remember that one who gave evidence had been in the same organisation for 16 years and was still counted as a casual. It doesn't make a lot of sense when that casual is working very similar hours, in the same job, over and over again, year in, year out. What this legislation does is to provide a pathway for the employer and the employee to have a clearer perspective, to have a better understanding and to be more crisp about what that definition is and how you might go about changing your status. Employer after employer, when we unpack it, says, 'Oh, yeah, but.' The reason is that this is not a risk. This is not a challenge. This is a fair and equitable way to deal with employees across this country. We've had great support for this legislation. What seems to be left is the political 'sky is falling in' fearmongering, which has no place. This legislation is fair, it is equitable and it goes about addressing the decade of disgraceful employment relations that we have experienced in this country. As we go about creating a fairer and more transparent framework for casual workers, ensuring that they receive the entitlements and protections they deserve, the bottom line is that the sky will not fall in. This is fair. This is equitable. This is what we should expect from a responsible government of this country. Properly defining casual work will end the exploitation. Various other measures in this bill will end exploitation for gig workers and provide some certainty and some safety measures. The Transport Workers Union yesterday, as they have done many times in the last 12 months, brought affected workers up to the parliament so that they could speak with those in this chamber and the other about their experience, to try and get them to better understand exactly what it is that workers are facing and what this legislation is going to fix. I'd just like to share a couple of stories. Nabin, who's a food delivery driver, has been working for multiple apps, which is necessary to make enough money in the gig economy. To get enough work, you have to work across multiple platforms. That is what people are telling us over and over again. After costs, he currently earns $13.60 an hour, and sometimes, when there isn't a great deal of work around, he can earn as little as $4 an hour. Just imagine what it would be like to try to live on that wage, to try to feed your family, to keep a roof over your head, to provide the essentials in life—on $4 to $13.60 an hour. We cannot, with any conscience, allow this to continue. There have to be changes, and this legislation provides those changes. There are others in exactly the same boat. This is not outlandish. This is not an outlier. These are the stories that various people in various industries are seeing in huge numbers, and we're hearing the stories over and over again. If only we would listen to them. I implore those opposite to listen to those stories, to imagine what these circumstances must be like, to think about how you would cope if that was the situation you were in, if that was what you had to deal with every single day, and how that would make you feel. I implore you to think about this in the sense of what it is doing for workers on the ground—not the politics, not the hoo-ha, not the trench warfare; put all that to one side and think about the impact on workers. As I said, these are workers who are providing those essential services across our country that we rely on day in, day out. The changes are not radical. They are sensible, fair, equitable changes. The changes are about fairness, about safety and about respect—respect for those people who go to work every day and sometimes at the end of an extraordinary long week still cannot afford to live, because their hourly rate ends up being so low. That, colleagues, is exploitation. The other kinds of people we heard from yesterday, from the Transport Workers Union, were people like Mugdha, a delivery driver who was knocked off her scooter on her first day of work and suffered injuries that were extraordinarily painful. She said the injuries left all of the left side of her body and her lower back in pain, but she had no access to workers compensation because of the independent contracting scenario that all our gig workers have to endure. She had no access to support. She was forced to return to work while still injured, while limping and while in pain and was working hours to make up the time she'd had off. That's not safe. That's not fair. Then we go to Robert, who was in the trucking industry for 30 years—an employee driver, an owner-driver and a company fleet manager who, as the owner of a fleet running 11 trucks, had up to 50 subcontractors. So, he is a highly experienced person in this industry. He says that the pressure to breach the fatigue rules was the difference between having work or being let go. If you're trying to feed your family, what decision are you going to make? He was constantly pushed to do more, to overload and to miss breaks. When he went on to employ drivers, he always insisted that they pull over, that they take their breaks, knowing full well the impact it had had on him. But, unfortunately, with these pressures, he had to close down his business because he could no longer afford to run the company while being safe, and he wasn't prepared to continue being unsafe. These are the decisions people are having to make. These are the kinds of things we're talking about: how those workers, those people who are out there providing the essential services that we use every day, the essential services that we rely on, are doing so without having the kinds of protections that are required. This bill also deals with the concerns of franchisees, particularly in relation to single-enterprise bargaining. This provision is significant because it aims to safeguard the rights and interests of franchisees to ensure that they are not unfairly disadvantaged in their dealings with the franchisor. By enhancing the access of franchisees to single enterprise streams, the legislation will promote a more balanced and equitable relationship. Surely that's what we want? We don't want to be in a situation where one group has all the power and can crush the others. That's not what we need in this country. We are looking to ensure that people can earn a decent living. The Albanese Labor government has moved mountains in the last 12 months, in my humble opinion, to improve the wages and conditions of workers and to improve the situation of people out there doing it tough, trying to earn a decent living and having to do it against the odds because of the current legislation. So, again, I implore you to look at the stories of the people who are actually being impacted. Look at the reality of what is occurring out on the streets. Look deeply at this legislation and the fairness, safety and equity that it promotes. Then ask yourself if you can, in all consciousness, vote against it. The bill has a range of things that were not passed in tranche 1 last year. These are the harder things, the things that people on the other side have more objections to. As I said previously, I think a range of those objections are ideological. They're about politics. They're about a form of trench warfare. They are not about the good of the people in this country. They are not about what's right, fair or safe. I implore you: think long and hard about how you intend to vote on this particular bill that is about workers' rights, workers' safety and finding a balance in our employment system that allows employers clarity. We have found so many good employers who do not have a problem with this bill and will support this bill. This is a critical bill. It is about fairness, safety and equity. Get on board and, please, vote for this bill. 12:02 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No.2) Bill 2023. Plenty of people have a problem with this bill, particularly small-business owners, Australian small and family businesses and their employees. The government's crushing war on small business continues. After the complete shambles we saw at the end of last year, we now have this condensed 183-page recipe on how to kill an Australian small business, cooked up by the lifelong servant of the union movement and now minister Tony Burke. This is a bill that is incredibly complicated. It adds extra significant cost to small and family businesses. It adds it to all businesses but particularly small and family businesses. It does that at a particularly difficult time, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis that this government has been unable to rein in. Hardworking Australian families are continuing to have trouble keeping their heads above water, paying their bills and deciding what to put in the trolley and how much petrol to put in the car. The government has said: 'That doesn't matter. We still have to press ahead with this further impost on Australian families and small businesses.' This bill does nothing to address the productivity crisis and it does absolutely nothing to increase competition. It places jobs at significant risk and it seeks only to act as part of the blank cheque that the Labor government writes to the union movement every single election. It does nothing for Australian small businesses and Australian employers. What it does do is seek to divide our country, instigating conflict between employees and employers, and playing the old class-warfare tune that seems to be the go-to for the Labor Party. It is completely neglectful of the legitimate concerns of Australian small businesses. Late last year, I sat in the main committee room with over 150 key stakeholders of Australian small and family businesses, and not one single stakeholder in that room representing a small or family Australian business said that they were happy with this bill. Worst of all, this bill weakens our economy, making an already bad situation worse. There are a couple of parts of the bill that I specifically want to speak on today. The first one relates to complexity. This is a complex bill. It is not simple. It is confusing. We have a duty here in this place to make sure that the laws we make are accessible and comprehensible to the Australian people, that they make sense and that they are simple to follow. This bill doesn't do that, and that couldn't be more important than in the realm of industrial relations, where it is very important that workers and businesses know both their rights and their obligations, and that they understand their rights and their obligations without necessarily having to pay for legal advice to be able to understand. What is hidden behind this is an agenda of union domination, where unions are heavily funded and resourced, capable of understanding and perhaps designing these incredibly complex provisions, and with direct advocates at the highest level of government, whereas small and family businesses are left on their own to navigate costly red tape. This government has failed to demonstrate how these new laws will make it easier for businesses to employ people, increase productivity, create a higher skilled workforce or raise living standards while we continue to navigate a cost-of-living crisis. This is a radical reordering of Australian workplace law which every business organisation in this country has pleaded with the government to review. This sort of complexity, and the costs associated with it, will be almost impossible for Australian small businesses to deal with. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations's appearance at a Senate estimates hearing was characterised by a series of complex and confusing explanations in relation to this bill and, in particular, its impact on casuals. If the department is confused, how are small and family businessowners meant to know? Numerous departmental officials were required to explain various parts of the controversial bill. Let's think about that. That means that a number of different experts from the department were required in order to, in some way, explain this bill. How is a small Australian business meant to navigate that? It often took two or three officials to contribute to the answer to a single question. So, for one question, an Australian small business might need to go to two or three separate experts in order to understand how to meet their obligations under this legislation. Many in the room were more confused at the end of the explanation about the complexities imposed on businesses than they were at the start. Australian small businesses will have to pay for confusing legal advice that may not give them the clarity that they require in order to meet their obligations under this legislation. Next I want to turn to the costs that will be imposed on consumers and businesses as result of this bill. At a time when hardworking Australian families are really struggling, this government has decided that they need higher costs for products that they use every day. Because things aren't expensive enough, we're going to make them more expensive, and now's the right time. Let's not forget that hardworking Australians are also the same hardworking Australians that run small and family businesses. They go home and have to pay their bills as well. They have electricity bills for their business; they have electricity bills at home. They have fuel costs for their business equipment; they have fuel costs for the family car. Mr Burke himself has admitted that the new laws will increase costs for consumers for everyday services they have come to rely on. This is not something that we're just making up to be difficult; this is something that Mr Burke himself has admitted. That is that these laws will increase costs for consumers for everyday services that they have come to rely on. Millions of Australians are already suffering under the crippling cost-of-living crisis that this government has created. Uber has said that its costs will go up by about 60 per cent. Uber Eats delivery fees will be up by about 85 per cent, and those numbers will only be compounded with penalty rates on weekends and public holidays. So what does that actually mean? Your $30 Uber home from the pub next Saturday night will start to look more like $50 or $60 after this bill has passed. On top of this, a surge after the cricket or the football means your Uber home is probably costing you more than your ticket to the game. So you decide you're going to walk or try to find a late-night bus. Guess what happens then? That Uber driver doesn't get the job. The additional cost to tech companies providing the services Australians rely on will be pushed on to consumers and the businesses that rely on their services. With the cost of living spiking, this will only discourage consumers from engaging with the economy through gig platforms. That means less money to businesses and fewer jobs. The gig economy was an innovation. This is effectively a tax on innovation. These proposed changes threaten the viability of Australia's vibrant platform economy that delivers essential goods and services from our business community to our consumers. I think we know Tony Burke's real agenda here. He has previously referred to the gig economy as a cancer. These words are an insult to the numerous hardworking independent contractors across Australia, people who believe that they have a right to choose how they work. Consumers benefit from the innovative new services that gig platforms deliver, particularly the convenience, range of services and choice. There is a growing community appetite for the fast and convenient delivery of services that this economy facilitates, which in turn is helping Australians manage busy and changing lives, such as by having meals delivered or being able to rely on rideshare. As I've noted, workers are choosing to do gig work, often as a second job, as they and their family navigate this cost-of-living crisis or when they want to choose their own work arrangements which suit their requirements and their needs, particularly for students, parents and retirees. They aren't stupid. A mum with children at school isn't stupid if she wants to work casually while her kids are at school. She knows what works for her. They don't need unions and this government or any government dictating that to them. Gig workers are themselves innovating along with changes to technology to best take advantage of work opportunities that platforms offer. Many log on to multiple apps simultaneously to access gig assignments that optimise their time and minimise their costs. These gig workers are self-managing when and how they work and gain both agency and new work opportunities from doing so. This form of work has grown. It is welcomed by workers, vendors and customers because it meets the needs of all. Industrial relations reform is, without doubt, one of the most important of all the economic reforms required to make Australia more productive and competitive. The focus of IR reforms should be to make us more productive and to create more jobs, not to be more complicated and more costly, and not to put jobs at risk. These workplace relations changes will add uncertainty and complexity to the employment of millions of casuals and contractors, and this is not good for the economy. The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable unions to exercise right of entry powers, without any notice, whenever it relates to wage underpayment. Let's think about that. To gain immediate entry, the union only need to assert that to the Fair Work Commission that they suspect a case of wage underpayment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Kovacic, unfortunately I have to interrupt you. We've come to the hard marker, and you will be in continuance when the debate resumes. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 30 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS O'Donoghue, Dr Lowitja, AC, CBE, DSG 30 12:16 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I rise to inform the Senate of the passing this week of an incredible Australian and wonderful leader for First Nations people, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue. Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue was born in 1932. She was a proud Yankunytjatjara woman and a fierce advocate and leader for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. She was born in the remote north-west corner of South Australia. At the age of two, Dr O'Donoghue was removed from her mother and put in the care of missionaries at Colebrook children's home at Quorn, South Australia. She was able to reunite with her mother only in 1967, more than 30 years later. In 1954, Dr O'Donoghue became the first Aboriginal person to train as a nurse at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, and this began the start of her journey as one of Australia's most celebrated leaders. In fact, I am sure that her time working as a nurse and her ability to look after and care for people enabled her to lead the way for First Nations people to work in the health sector. She was able to take that throughout her life into the community controlled health sector. From 1970 to 1972, Dr O'Donoghue was a member of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and later became regional director of the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs. In 1976, she became the first Aboriginal woman to be awarded an Order of Australia. A year later, she was appointed the foundation chair of the National Aboriginal Conference and chair of the Aboriginal Development Commission. In March 1990, she was appointed the founding chairperson of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, ATSIC. During this time, she played a key role in drafting the native title legislation that arose from the High Court's historic Mabo decision. Dr O'Donoghue became the inaugural chair of the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal and Tropical Health between 1996 and 2003, which later was named the Lowitja Institute in Dr O'Donoghue's honour. Dr O'Donoghue received numerous awards and accolades. She was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire, CBE, in 1983 and Australian of the Year in 1984, during which time she became the first Aboriginal person to address the United Nations General Assembly. She won the Advance Australia Award in 1982, was named a National Living Treasure in 1998, was awarded a Companion of the Order of Australia, AC, in 1999 and was named Dame of the Order of St Gregory the Great, DSG, a papal award, in 2005. There would be hundreds, if not thousands, of Australians across the country, especially First Nations people, who have been influenced and who have been able to look to Dr O'Donoghue and be inspired by the example that she set. If I can look at my own personal experiences of having met with her and learnt from her in my early years as a journalist and when she was also working in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, I know that, for those staff who worked with her at the time, that was an incredible opportunity for our country to try and engage with First Nations people and to give First Nations people an opportunity to lift out of despair and poverty. Lowitja O'Donoghue actually experienced the deep challenges of what it was like to also be a commanding presence in a very humble sort of way. I heard Dr John Paterson, from the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance NT, speak about her the other day and how, when he was working as part of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission as the commissioner in the Northern Territory, there were some times when she did pick up the phone to gently remind him that there were certain things he had to do. She had a way about her that told people she was very serious about what she wanted to do at the federal level with the commission, and she encouraged everyone to work as a team. It was good to be able to hear from others just recently who spoke strongly about her as well. For example, Noel Pearson made the comment that she was 'the greatest Aboriginal leader of the modern era' and 'the rock who steadied us in the storm'. She was pivotal in the advancement of Indigenous causes and prevalent during some of the most historic moments in modern Aboriginal affairs, including the 1967 referendum, the native title legislation in 1993 and the National Apology to the Stolen Generations in 2008. Even our former senator Pat Dodson, the father of reconciliation, said: This is a sad day for first peoples of this nation. We have lost an extraordinary person of great courage and strength. I would also like to reach out to the families of Dr O'Donoghue and express our thanks for her service to our country and also our deepest condolences on her passing. I would like to also reach out to the Lowitja Institute, to the staff and to the board. The Lowitja Institute is named in honour of Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue. It is Australia's national institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. A major funder of the Lowitja Institute is the Department of Health and Aged Care, which provides a total of $30.5 million to assist them. We know that the institute's work on the health and wellbeing of Australia's First Peoples is imperative. The fact that the institute has strong networks with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peak bodies, professional associations and communities is essential. Again, in life as in death, Dr O'Donoghue will forever remain integral in the development of First Nations peoples and the rights of First Nations peoples to improve our lives through the way she conducted herself, through all the things that she did and how she continues to do it. To each of you who continue to work at the Lowitja Institute, our thoughts are with you as well. I know that many of you go to work each day incredibly proud to work for an institute named after her, but also in the work that you do in trying to improve the lives of First Nations people. One of the things I am proud of, having certainly known Dr O'Donoghue and having learnt from her—as I said, as a young journalist but also coming through in my own community of Borroloola and watching and learning from our elders at the time like her—is that I'm incredibly conscious of the fact that, as I stand as the Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health, we have work ahead of us in terms of renal dialysis and the units that we are trying to roll out across the country for the chronic disease; in terms of rheumatic heart disease and the work that we're doing in particular in places like Maningrida; and in terms of what we're doing in terms of the employment of more First Nations clinicians through the 500 health worker traineeship programs. All of this is a good and a constant reminder that the legacy of Dr O'Donoghue continues to live on, and I pay my respects to her family today. Albanese Government 31 12:25 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise to speak in this place for the first time in 2024. I would like to begin by acknowledging the incredible amount of nonsense, gymnastics and shallow political stunts the Albanese government decided to entertain the country with over the Christmas and new year break, beginning with the Prime Minister's pathetic attempt to distance himself from his divisive and failed referendum, his impressive tightrope walking to avoid taking a position on Australia Day and his impressive backflipping over the stage 3 tax cuts. They have come full circle. He and his government are now trying to quietly run as fast as they can away from their commitment to the divisive Uluru Statement from the Heart. Mr Albanese was very keen to make sure everyone knew he wasn't taking a holiday—no, he was hard at work doing his best to make the lives of Australians much, much harder. No doubt he will continue that hard work over the next 11 months. Luckily, the coalition is just as committed to fighting for common sense as the Albanese government is to fighting for their ideology—the same ideology that led this government to waste 18 months on a divisive referendum when they should have been pursuing real and practical solutions to address the real problems being faced by our most marginalised Australians. While they should have been focusing on need, the Labor Party was focusing on race. Of course, they wouldn't need to be trying to turn Australians against each other or divide us by race if they had any sort of plan to address Indigenous disadvantage. They wouldn't need to look for a silver bullet fix, desperately trying to sell Australians on half-baked, detail-less proposals like the Voice if they had any decent policy ideas. They wouldn't need to constantly try to shift responsibility for this issue to other organisations if they were willing to accept that simply throwing money at a problem isn't the best way to fix it. A Peter Dutton led coalition government will focus on need, not race. We won't waste time on ideologically driven silver bullet approaches to addressing disadvantage. We will find where a need exists and work with communities to address that need. We will do the work to understand where government money and resources can better be used, to look at where government efforts are producing positive outcomes and to stop funnelling it into places where it is not producing those outcomes. That is why, last year, while Mr Albanese sought to divide Australians, my colleagues and I repeatedly called for this government to take the first steps in that process. We moved multiple motions for Senate inquiries into Aboriginal Land Councils and similar organisations. These calls were repeatedly denied by Labor, the Greens and ACT Senator David Pocock. My colleagues and I called for a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities and an audit of spending on Indigenous programs. This too was denied. When Mr Dutton joined me in the Northern Territory last year and heard directly from Territorians about their experiences and the issues they faced, we were both accused of politicising the issue, simply for trying to bring attention to it. In response to our calls we have been told that we don't need any audits and we don't need investigations or royal commissions. This is plainly wrong. Last year the Western Australian government had to scramble to undo its disastrous Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. The act proved to be a nightmare for Australians to navigate and simultaneously appeared to open the door for some groups to take advantage, including one Indigenous organisation that tried to claim $2.5 million to approve a tree-planting activity. Last week the coalition firmly resolved to defund the Environmental Defenders Office after it was caught exploiting—fancy that—Indigenous individuals and organisations, with some in the EDO found to be effectively coaching Indigenous witnesses to help make their case. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people know only too well that this is not the first time Indigenous Australians have been exploited for the benefit of others. It's not the first time money intended to help some of the most marginalised Australians has been used in ways that actually hurt them—hurting investment opportunities and depriving Indigenous Australians of economic opportunity and independence. Indeed, with the Environmental Defenders Office, we now find ourselves in the incredible situation where the Albanese government is actually funding organisations that are pursuing the deprivation of Indigenous economic participation while simultaneously wasting hundreds of millions of dollars trying to implement ill-conceived silver-bullet policy solutions to Indigenous disadvantage. Earlier this week Darren Perry, an Aboriginal man who has been a long-term advocate for Indigenous peoples—even helping draft cultural heritage laws for the Victorian government—spoke about his calls for a parliamentary inquiry to investigate the loopholes in laws and governance issues in Aboriginal corporations. Hah! He claimed that he believes these laws are being hijacked to funnel money into some Aboriginal corporations and accused some organisations of extorting developers, farmers and even the government, with consequences felt by all Australians. He said the legislation must protect Aboriginal land rights but should not be used as a 'gravy train' to line individuals' pockets. He said: The Act was not meant to extort money out of developers. This is extortion. I know what standover tactics are, and that's what's going on. In the Northern Territory, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, which receives more than $14 million of taxpayer money, has been plagued by crisis and scandal and allegations of criminal behaviour and wrongdoing. Earlier this year the staff of NAAJA wrote a letter calling for urgent intervention by both the Territory and the federal governments, demanding the removal of the executive team. Barrister John Lawrence says the crisis engulfing NAAJA is 'crippling the NT's justice system and contributing to the record number of Indigenous people in prison'. We need an audit so we can understand where government money and resources can be better used. We have to look at where government efforts are producing positive outcomes and stop funnelling money into places where it is not producing these outcomes. We have to do this if we want to see real change and if we want to see an improvement in the lives of those marginalised Indigenous Australians. But, unfortunately, we won't get this from the Albanese government. We won't get it from an Indigenous Australians minister who does not have a plan. We won't get it from a Labor Party who allows ideology to trample common sense. We need a plan and we need common sense. The only way we will get that is from a Peter Dutton led coalition government. Human Rights 32 12:34 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Today I'm wearing a jacket today that was gifted to me by Shakila, an Afghan Hazara refugee. Shakila joined her husband, Juma, in Australia mid last year. Thank you, Shakila. The jacket is beautiful. Juma was one of the many Afghans my office and I advocated for—to receive an emergency humanitarian visa to Australia—when Kabul fell to the Taliban in August 2021. I want to thank the former government and former Minister Marise Payne for the work they did getting people out of Afghanistan. Helping people escape from Afghanistan is one of the very tangible things I feel proud of having done during my time in the Senate. But of course, for every person who gained asylum in Australia and other countries, there are thousands more who can't or who are subject to disappearances, torture and killings. Women and girls are being held prisoner in their homes or stolen from families to becomes brides of Taliban fighters. Before Afghanistan hit the headlines, there was Myanmar. Sadly, the war in Myanmar and the killings, torture and jailings by the brutal junta are still continuing. Ukraine pushed Afghanistan out of the news as the brutal regime of Vladimir Putin attempts to take territory that's not theirs. Israel's invasion and genocide in Gaza have killed more people in four months than civilians killed in Ukraine in two years. Israel's occupation and now genocide of Palestine stands with other occupations, including China's occupation of Tibet in 1959, Indonesia's invasion of West Papua in 1969 and India's occupation of two-thirds of Kashmir in 1947—all in a brutal time line of colonial oppression, including the invasion and occupation of Australia by the English and the genocide of our First Peoples. Yet, over 200 years on, we still have political leaders who dogmatically deny the truth of the brutality of settlement of this continent and the multigenerational trauma still being experienced by too many of our First Peoples. We have political leaders who don't recognise that their wealth and privilege come from stolen wealth, stolen land and the brutal subjugation of the rights of our First Peoples. I've been in the Senate now for almost a decade, and I've spoken many times in this place about human rights. What I want to say today is that, if we believe that human rights are important and if we believe that we should be working for the human rights of all people throughout the world, then we have to be consistent and courageous in our advocacy and our work for human rights. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed to at the UN on 10 December 1948, the world agreed on what human rights were and how they should be protected. In this speech, I want to focus on the human rights of people in the occupied states of Palestine, Tibet, West Papua and Kashmir because, while human rights are violated all over the world, it's in occupied states where the 30 articles of the universal declaration are comprehensively smashed, and the world collectively needs to be doing much more for people who are so oppressed in these states. In Palestine, occupation has erupted into genocide over the last three months. As the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq said before the current genocide in Gaza: Palestine has become a litmus test for the effectiveness of the international human rights system as a whole. Only by ending Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territory, realising Palestinian refugees' right of return, and ensuring equal rights for all Palestinians, including citizens, without discrimination, can Palestinians' faith in the international system be restored. This requires genuine accountability and a global effort to end Israel's widespread and systematic abuses … In Tibet, attacks on universal human rights are manifest. As the Office of Tibet representing the Tibetan parliament in exile has stated: … the PRC government continues to operate colonial boarding schools, separating nearly one million Tibetan children from their families and depriving them of the opportunity to learn their mother tongue …and … Tibetan culture and traditions. A significant majority of Tibetans, specially writers, intellectuals, environmentalists, community leaders, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, and artists are unlawfully arrested, imprisoned, tortured and subjected to enforced disappearance … …   …   … Tibetans are particularly repressed in their religious rights, with lay Tibetans and children forbidden from participating in religious activities, while monks and nuns are subjected to political indoctrination sessions and barred from religious teachings and discussion … China refuses to enclose— or, rather, 'disclose'— any credible information on the whereabouts of Tibet's 11th Panchen Lama following 28 years of enforced disappearance… …   …   … Over two million Tibetan nomads and farmers have been forced to relocate from their traditional grasslands … The vast vacated land has been illegally claimed and … used for military training camps, mining activities, and large-scale government projects, including hydropower plants … that benefit the PRC government at the expense of local Tibetans and the environment. Let me move on to West Papua. West Papua was occupied by Indonesia and was annexed in 1969, and the people of West Papua have been denied the right self-determination since. In 2022, UN human rights experts expressed serious concerns about the deteriorating human rights situation in West Papua, citing shocking abuses including child killings, disappearances, torture and the forced displacement of 60,000 to 100,000 people since 2018. The experts called for urgent humanitarian access to the region and urged the Indonesian government to conduct full and independent investigations into abuses against the indigenous peoples. I will move on to Kashmir. India occupied two-thirds of Kashmir in 1947. UN human rights observers, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented ongoing human rights abuses in the 76 years since. Amnesty International reported in 2022 that the Indian government had drastically intensified the repression of rights in Jammu and Kashmir in the previous three years, since the special status that gave them significant autonomy was stripped away. Amnesty documented how people have faced relentless interrogations, arbitrary travel bans, revolving-door detentions and repressive media policies, while being blocked from access to appeals or justice in courts and human rights bodies. The UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, said last year: Indian authorities appear to be intensifying the longstanding repression of Kashmiri civil society. I want to conclude today with a message to the Australian government and parliament, reinforcing my many contributions in this place about human rights. If we truly are committed to human rights then we have to protect them for all people, without fear or favour, and not pick and choose depending on what is seen to suit Australia's interests. To protect the rights of Palestinians, the occupation must end and Australia must join the South African case in the ICJ, acknowledge that what Israel is doing in Gaza is genocide and apply sanctions against members of the Israeli war cabinet. Australia must do more to protect the rights of people in Tibet. I commend Australia's recent contribution to China's universal periodic review, but we have to do more. We must raise these issues at every forum we have with the Chinese government, and Australia should put a policy in place and advocate for the Chinese to protect the succession of the 14th Dalai Lama without any interference from the Chinese government. We should act on a key ask of the Tibetans, which is for the world to recognise Tibet as an occupied region and an unresolved conflict, not as part of China, and for pressure to be placed on China to come back to the negotiating table. The Chinese government hasn't engaged on the issue of Tibet since 2013. Similarly, with West Papua, the Australian government has been blind to the human rights abuses there, has failed to take action and has blocked action in the Senate to shine a light on them. The Greens stand in solidarity with all West Papuans who are facing such violence, and we urge the Australian government to join the calls for self-determination for the West Papuan people and for the Indonesian government to immediately withdraw all military forces and cease attacks on civilians. Finally, on Kashmir, we urge the Australian government to act to raise the appalling ongoing repression and intimidation in Indian-occupied Kashmir and elsewhere in India in every forum, including bilateral meetings, through the Quad and in other multilateral fora. We should be actively advocating for an act of self-determination for both Indian- and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Human rights matter for all people across the world, and Australia could be playing a much bigger role in working for an international rules based order where human rights matter, ending occupation, and working for justice in war-torn countries such as Afghanistan and Myanmar. I urge the government to lift our game both at home and abroad, and I commit to playing my part and continuing to work for international justice both in my remaining time here and ongoingly. Queensland: Floods 34 12:44 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Everybody knows how proud regional Queenslanders are and the incredible sense of community they hold. That sense of community has never been more apparent than it was on 13 December, when Far North Queensland was impacted by Tropical Cyclone Jasper. The days following Tropical Cyclone Jasper's crossing will forever be etched in the minds of residents of Far North Queensland. In my hometown of Cairns, I watched as the rain poured heavily for days and days. As the Barron River broke, residents in Machans Beach, Holloways Beach and nearby Kamerunga, Lake Placid and Caravonica faced a terrifying day and night of unprecedented rain and flooding. I've spoken to community members in these tight-knit communities about their experiences. The flooding of their homes and communities unfolded rapidly. It was unprecedented and unpredictable how quickly the water came. The peak of the flooding happened in the dark of the night. Most had been well prepared for Cyclone Jasper, which had passed a few days prior—or so we thought. They packed their tin food, water, torches and so on in cyclone kits that they had started to unpack, only to move them to higher parts of their homes a few days later. A few days later, residents faced situations they never thought were possible. They spent the night sitting on their rooftops waiting to be rescued, watching their life possessions be inundated by floodwaters, having to make difficult decisions about their pets as floodwaters rose. Further north, landslides along the Captain Cook Highway cut off access to our Douglas Shire communities like Port Douglas and the Daintree. The entire community of Wujal Wujal was evacuated when weather allowed. Whole towns were swallowed by water and mud. Roads were destroyed, homes were destroyed and our community was hurting. Despite the challenges, communities across Far North Queensland displayed remarkable resilience. Swiftwater rescue crews, the SES, the ADF and local heroes on personal watercraft braved the elements to evacuate those stranded on rooftops across the region. Locals in tinnies pitched in to help. The Queensland State Emergency Service responded bravely to the call for help, receiving an overwhelming 146 calls within Far North Queensland. Our emergency services—the unsung heroes of such disasters—worked tirelessly to rescue, protect and serve our community in the face of such adversity. It was traumatic, and there are, understandably, people in the community still suffering stress and anxiety today and likely for a long time to come. Less than a day after the cyclone impacted and before the water started to flow, Premier Miles and Minister Watt were in Cairns announcing that they had activated joint funding disaster assistance under the disaster recovery funding arrangements to support affected individuals and councils. It was at that press conference that we expressed a sigh of relief that there wasn't more damage from Cyclone Jasper, only to watch the water flow within the next couple of days. Within a fortnight, our government had delivered almost $18 million in disaster assistance payments directly to people significantly impacted by Tropical Cyclone Jasper in Far North Queensland. Once our airport reopened, Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Miles flew to Cairns to survey the damage. The thanks and care they showed was appreciated on the ground—and I'm sure that the slab of XXXX Gold they donated to the Ergon workers was also appreciated! Those Ergon workers gave up their Christmas holidays with their families to restore power to families in Far North Queensland, and we cannot thank them enough. That day, $64 million for cyclone recovery in Far North Queensland was announced. We provided $25 million of extraordinary recovery grants for primary producers and $25 million in extraordinary recovery grants for small businesses and not-for-profits as well. We also announced $9 million in local recovery and resilience grants for eligible councils and started to build towards tourism recovery by announcing $5 million for the region. The Prime Minister and the Premier visited residents on our beaches that day. This included Jan, who had braved the floodwaters by getting on top of her kitchen bench as waters flowed through her home. Jan's kitchen has to be replaced, and she told me it was so hot when the power went out that she slept on the tiles in her living room. Cairns was not the only region that was hard hit. In early January I saw for myself the damage to communities in Wujal Wujal and Degarra. When I was there I met Bill, who showed me the tree that he tied a bedsheet around to hold onto when the water went over his house. It was incredible just how high the water reached and how damaging the flood was to these northern communities. And I want to acknowledge that it wasn't just Cairns that experienced this flooding. It paints a picture of what many other communities across the Douglas region must have experienced. Our tourism industry has been hit hard, but we are bouncing back. Our government announced $24 million for our Tourism Recovery Resilience Program to provide grants to far northern operators who have been severely impacted by this extreme weather. Helping tourism operators to get back on their feet and helping to get visitors back to our region has been a priority for our government. As Jenny Hill, the mayor of Townsville, said to me the other day, response is easy but recovery takes time. This disaster saw an extensive response from government agencies, Ergon workers, SES, council crews, NEMA, QRA—the list goes on, and I want to thank them all. I want to thank the federal government and the Queensland government for working together so quickly to get funding and support out the door. I want to thank our local councils for the work they've done. I want to thank, more importantly, those heroes of Far North Queensland. On 21 December I met real-life hero Bret Little, more commonly known as Magoo, in Cooktown. He saved the lives of people who were trapped on the roof of the Lion's Den pub in Rossville, ferrying them to safety in his chopper. I also met Roscoe, who rescued his neighbours and various pets, homing them in his place in Holloways. There are countless stories just like this of unsung heroes who pitched in when they were needed. But I want to pay a special tribute to the people of Far North Queensland today. The outpouring of support from our regions is nothing short of extraordinary. People have stood together, and we have rebuilt. Tropical Cyclone Jasper was the wettest tropical cyclone ever recorded in Australia. As it bucketed down an unprecedented and unpredictable amount of rain across Far North Queensland, it was deafening and daunting. Most recently, Townsville and surrounds were hit by Tropical Cyclone Kirrily. Although the damage was less severe than that of Jasper, it marks that this cyclone season is just beginning. The Ergon trucks rolled out again across Queensland. Queenslanders are no strangers to disasters. We know that the impact of climate change means we will face more extreme weather. Queenslanders are good at being prepared, we're good at responding and we're good at recovering. But that's why our government has been so focused on disaster preparedness, mitigation and resilience, because Queenslanders know how important it is to be prepared for these disasters, to respond together and to stand together in recovery. Response is easy; recovering is hard. But I'm here to tell people across the country that Far North Queensland is open for business. The reef is ready, and it looks great. The rainforest is open and ready for you to visit. If you want to support our community after everything we've been through—it was a very tough Christmas for some people in our region—the best gift we could receive is a visit from tourists all across Australia. So please take advantage of the discounted flights that have been provided with funding from the state and federal government and book a holiday to Far North Queensland today. It is something that will make a big difference to our small community, who have been through a really tough time. Renewable Energy 35 12:53 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Yesterday 50 regional communities from across Australia gathered on the lawns of parliament to peacefully protest the haphazard manner in which the Labor government are conducting their renewable energy policies. In Labor's haste to meet their 82 per cent renewable energy targets and their 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, which is currently crawling along at a snail's pace, the government is excluding local communities from the decision-making process while the energy minister expedites the approvals process and ignores the communities impacted by this unprecedented energy project. One of these ambitious projects—Australia's second offshore wind zone—will be constructed off the coast of some of my patron seats in the Hunter region of New South Wales, home to some of the most beautiful coastline in New South Wales. It's one of the largest projects in the Labor government's Powering Australia plan. The consultation process that followed the announcement of the Hunter offshore wind zone can only be described as a sham. It ran for just 65 days, and most locals weren't even aware it was going on until it had already been completed. Some community members, including senior citizens, were excluded from the process, as only digital submissions were accepted, and locals have claimed that the unions were involved in the engagement process to skew the submissions towards the positive. The concerns of those residents who did manage to participate in the consultation process have been ignored. Locals are concerned about the environmental impact of the project, the effects on wildlife, the visual impact on the area and the possible interference with whales' migratory paths. Local tourism and commercial and recreational fishing are the lifeblood of these areas, and none of the locals' concerns were allayed during Labor's shoddy consultation process. What's amazing is that Labor tacitly admitted that their consultation process was flawed. When the energy minister last year announced the Community Engagement Review to improve community engagement, they were acknowledging their shortcomings. You'd think that the logical thing to do would be to reopen the consultation process, as the opposition leader pressed Minister Bowen to do. Instead, Minister Bowen proceeded to declare the Hunter offshore wind zone the following week. It was Bowen again talking from both sides of his mouth. Community involvement should never be an afterthought. It should be an integral part of the planning process from the very beginning. Engaging local residents early on can provide valuable insights, local knowledge and a sense of ownership over the projects. It ensures that people have time to consider, grapple with and overcome any concerns they may have. The attendees at the rally yesterday are not anti-environment or climate deniers; in fact, the residents who live in these pristine locations value the environment more than anyone. If one single Labor MP had bothered to go out and talk to these people who came all the way from Port Stephens and Newcastle, the Central Coast and the Illawarra, they would have found that out. Where were the members for Shortland, Newcastle and Paterson? Now, we all recognise the need to move to a carbon neutral future, and renewable energy will of course play a role. However, it's our responsibility to ensure that the implementation of renewable energy is fair, transparent and considerate of the communities it affects. We must strive to strike a balance between the benefits of renewable energy, such as job creation and economic development, and the costs, such as job losses and land appropriation, and it's essential to recognise that renewable projects are disproportionately placed in rural and regional areas. While it would be nice to see the teals advocating for an offshore wind farm off Mackellar or Warringah, I can't see that happening any time soon. It's always a yes for renewable projects—just not in our backyard, please. While renewable energy, like wind and solar, will play a role in our transition to a carbon neutral economy, we have to be realistic about the potential environmental consequences associated with these projects. We hear renewable and we think it must be good; it must be clean and green. You'd think that of all people the Greens would be right behind scrutinising these projects to ensure that they stack up environmentally. We know that there are challenges with renewable energy, whether it's the use of finite resources being extracted from Third World countries or the use of slave labour in solar panel creation, whether it's the risk of highly dangerous flammable chemical fires with electric vehicles or whether it's research into the impact of offshore wind turbines on marine life. Let's be honest. If we can't be honest about the challenges, then how can we develop a renewables plan and industry that has a genuinely beneficial application? Let's not stand with our fingers in our ears and our hands over our eyes, refusing to acknowledge the issues and throwing the baby out with the bathwater because we don't want to believe it or we don't want to upset our stakeholders, particularly our union mates. We must adopt a precautionary approach, acknowledging that the pursuit of renewable energy should not contribute to the degradation of biodiversity, the livelihoods of communities or the firming of our grid or create further pricing pain for consumers. Our commitment to a sustainable future must extend beyond just reducing carbon emissions. The fact that this government chooses to hide its head in the sand on the antiquated moratorium that exists in this country on nuclear energy is downright confusing, given the claims this government makes about being the robust champion of renewable energy. We know that nuclear is one of the best forms of energy generation and is one of the energies that can best assist with our desire to decarbonise our economy. There are a range of studies in the US and Canada that speak to the great economic and environmental value of nuclear energy—so much so that in Canada it's not even a political hot potato; it's got multipartisan support there. Even Prime Minister Trudeau has signalled support for it. Our global partners in Europe use nuclear to firm up their grids. What is so different or backward about Australia that we, one of the largest exporters of uranium, cannot build our own thriving industry? We must take hold of the reins of our own destiny when it comes to our energy and resources, instead of relying on foreign markets to prop up our economy. Rigorous safety standards, advancements in nuclear technology, and responsible waste management have developed considerably in the decades since Chernobyl, but this energy minister has an antiquated and stubborn mindset. He is resolutely against anything that he isn't already doing. He refuses to listen to any challenge to the current policy settings, calling thousands of Australians in the regions, including the ones that came out to protest yesterday, victims of a coalition scare campaign. No, Minister Bowen, they are not mugs. They are real people that are being impacted by your policies, and it's downright offensive to pigeonhole these real people into a political box to serve your own dismissive purpose. They care about the environment, and they want their voices heard. Is that really too much to ask? But Labor stubbornly refuses to change track, and it's not just wind farms. They've shut down the coalition's request for an inquiry looking into the impact of transmission lines across the region seven times. It's appalling and just continues to raise questions about the transparency and accountability of decision-making processes related to renewable energy infrastructure. It's crucial that we uphold the principles of transparency and ensure that inquiries and investigations proceed without undue influence or interference. Transparency is the bedrock of trust, and we must strive to maintain public confidence in the decisions that shape our future. I would urge the government to reopen the community consultation process on the Hunter offshore wind zone and to re-evaluate their decision to block the inquiry into transmission lines. I urge them to consider the impact on public discourse, policy formulation and the overall trajectory of our transition to renewable energy. These processes take time. Communities must be consulted. Research must be conducted. Money must be set aside. Businesses and government must invest in infrastructure and technologies. For this to be done by government, above board and in an open and honest way, it will take careful, measured consideration. Labor has always loved to make bold and lofty claims about the aspirational future it desires for Australia, but it's only the coalition who's willing to be pragmatic and make the difficult decisions to ensure that our country does not sacrifice its prosperity on the altar of green ideology. Tasmania: Medicare 37 13:03 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania If you're an adult with no concession card and you're looking for a bulk-billing doctor in Northern Tasmania, how many options do you reckon there are? None. Bulk-billing isn't supposed to be for everyone. It's supposed to be a safety net to keep health care available for those who can't afford to pay for it, but Tasmanians who can't afford it are still being asked to pay for it. The bulk-billing system isn't a safety net in Tasmania. There isn't a safety net at all. Tasmanians have the highest out-of-pocket GP fees in the country. We're the country's oldest population, with the lowest average wages in the country and the highest rate of people with two or more chronic conditions. In other words, the state that needs GPs the most but can afford it the least is paying the highest fees in the country. People are falling through the cracks. We're not just talking about the absolute poorest of the poor either. We're talking about ordinary people who aren't poor enough to qualify for bulk-billing incentives but who aren't rich enough to save anything from this month's pay cheque and about the people putting bills on payment plans and using Afterpay to buy groceries. While Tasmanians are avoiding the doctor, politicians are arguing about whose job it is to deal with it. The Tasmanian Liberals have a shocking record on health. When they're challenged on it, they say that the feds need to come to the party. The federal Labor government says that they're doing things like increasing the bulk-billing incentive. But giving doctors more money for bulk-billing doesn't work when none of them bulk-bill. Every bit of our health system is under pressure, from GP clinics shutting down to overflowing emergency departments. Our health system is on fire while the state and the feds are arguing about whose job it is to put the fire out. You aren't doing a community service by telling Tasmanians why their problems aren't your problem. Just fix it. The Labor government champion their urgent care clinics as a solution to Tassie's bulk-billing woes. These clinics do bulk-bill patients, but they're not what Tasmanians were promised. Labor said the clinics would be open from 8 am until 10 pm, but they're not. Labor went to an election promising they'd be open for 14 hours a day and they're open for six. Labor's Tasmanian team seems to think they should get credit for delivering 40 per cent of what they promised. They think they should get praised for only helping those who get sick or injured between lunch and dinner. I'll tell you about an urgent care clinic experience of a constituent of mine. She became violently ill one morning in Launnie and needed fluids. She had to head to a private clinic in Launceston because Labor's urgent care clinic wasn't open. She had to pay a $160 facility fee upfront for the care she needed. She then had to pay $41 for her treatment, which she got back from Medicare, and another $48 for her medication. She had to pay $200 for what Labor, when they went to an election, said would be free. What choice did she have? For some, that would be the choice between getting the treatment they need and having money for next week's groceries. It is not a choice Tasmanians should have to make. Everyone should have access to affordable medical care when they need it. We need to make bulk-billing more affordable and available. But we can't have the cost blow out of control, because that ends up being paid for by you in your taxes. Families struggling to make ends meet don't need to be given free things with one hand and taxed on the other to cover the bill. That's why, to make bulk-billing more generous, we need to target it. Why do kids of rich parents living on Sydney's beaches get a GP visit for free? Why do they get a free GP visit, but an older woman working pay cheque to pay cheque as a cleaner in Ravo, earning just above minimum wage, has to fork out $80 for a GP visit? And it's not just the visit. She could be told by her GP that she needs to see a specialist. She also can't afford to see them and take medication that she can't afford to buy. The bulk-billing incentives should apply to postcodes for all people, not just for kids under 16 and people on concession cards. This would help GP clinics to be established in areas that service those postcodes, knowing that the large majority of the patients that come through the doors will be able to be bulk-billed at a higher rate. We need bulk-billing to be fairer across the board. The government really needs to take a long, hard look at itself and ask why its policies aren't working in Tassie. There needs to be a shake-up of the system to make sure that what they're doing in Canberra makes it over the Bass Strait. Taxation 38 13:08 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I think it's important to know—because of the scaremongering which has already started on that side of the chamber in relation to the announcement of the Albanese Labor government's tax cut plan—that this plan is far superior to the previous Morrison Liberal government's stage 3 plan. That plan was hatched five years ago, whereas the Albanese tax plan that we have to give real cost-of-living relief to Australian workers is for now; it's for these economic times. This is not a plan that was hatched, as I said, five years ago but one that is relevant to 2024 and to combating the cost of living. Times have changed. As a government we needed to amend the stage 3 plan so that more Australians would receive more of their money back to help deal with the changing economic circumstances that we are experiencing. With these changes the government is making our tax system fairer. We're delivering more relief for more workers, without adding to inflation and without burdening the budget. Every taxpayer across Australia will receive a tax cut. These tax cuts will help relieve cost-of-living pressures for all Tasmanians, from where I come, who are experiencing real challenges with the cost of living. In Bass, which is northern Tasmania, this means 47,000 northern Tasmanians will receive a tax cut. For 40,000 of these people, they will get a larger tax cut than they would have under the proposed Morrison Liberal tax cuts. Overall, people living in Launceston and northern Tasmania will be, on average, $1,343 better off under the Albanese government's plan. This is about relief for the cost-of-living challenges we are all facing, and it is a superior tax plan than that offered by those opposite, because more tax relief will assist more Tasmanian families. Around 90 per cent of taxpayers in Tasmania will receive a bigger tax cut. Around 89 per cent of taxpayers in South Australia will receive a bigger tax cut. Around 87 per cent of taxpayers in Queensland will receive a bigger tax cut. Around 86 per cent of taxpayers in Victoria will receive a bigger tax cut. Around 84 per cent of taxpayers in the Northern Territory will receive a bigger tax cut. Around 83 per cent of taxpayers in New South Wales will receive a bigger tax cut. Around 81 per cent of taxpayers in Western Australia will receive a bigger tax cut. And around 79 per cent of taxpayers here in the ACT will receive a bigger tax cut. What do these tax cuts mean for certain groups? Well, 6.5 million female taxpayers will receive an average of $1,649 relief. Of those, 5.8 million women—that's 90 per cent of them—will receive a bigger tax cut than they would have received under the Morrison plan. On average, that is an increase of $707. A person on the median taxable income, of around $68,000, will get a tax cut of around $1,379. That's $804 more under the Albanese plan, as opposed to the Morrison plan. A person on an average annual salary of around $73,000, as I spoke about earlier today, like a nurse at the Launceston General Hospital in my home state, will get $1,504. That's $104 more under our plan compared to what they were offering in 2019. What does this mean for young Australians? All 1.5 million taxpayers between 18 and 24 will receive a tax cut of over $1,000—around $1,007. This is good. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about older Australians, younger Australians or all inspirational taxpayers in this country—because every Australian aspires to do better for themselves and their children. We have taken a broadbrush approach, but middle Australia has been looked after. They will always be able to rely on a Labor government to do more. We're not about scaremongering. We're about good policy. Ukraine 39 13:13 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Make no mistake: the world is witnessing two wars at the moment. We are in the shadow of conflict. While the war in Israel and Gaza is dominating the headlines, we cannot forget the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. It's a stark reminder that the battle there is not just merely territorial but a crucial fight for the very heart of democracy, freedom and security. We cannot let the war in Ukraine descend into the annals of forgotten conflicts. Its significance transcends borders. Its fight is a fight for security, democracy and freedom. Australia has played a pivotal role in providing consistent support to Ukraine, though not as much as I've called for, and I am on the record stating that we should be doing more. We have committed to and we have been providing support, but we should be doing more if not just for Ukraine then in support of the international rules based order. It is imperative that, alongside our international partners, we sustain our support to prevent the erosion of these fundamental global principles. The world's focus has been drawn onto new crises and regions and, with each passing day, we see more and more headlines and fights becoming even more intractable and a humanitarian disaster that we cannot ignore. But we cannot allow these distractions to draw our focus away from the fight in Ukraine. Australia's continued aid to Ukraine is essential, as is its support for the Ukrainian government in multilateral forums. This is not just for that country's resilience but as a testament to our dedication to global norms that have safeguarded peace and prosperity for generations, since the Second World War. The prolonged nature of the Ukrainian conflict risks breeding fatigue, and we are seeing less and less of the fight on the front pages of our newspapers and on our nine o'clock and seven o'clock news every day. Global misinformation and disinformation campaigns from our adversaries are changing the way that we are seeing this war, and the Australian government and its agencies must be alive to these misinformation and disinformation threats to Australia's social cohesion. The risk of this internal division only serves those who oppose the democratic values that we cherish, making it crucial to counteract that misinformation and maintain a unified stance in support of Ukraine. We are seeing Iran using Gaza to increase tensions across the Middle East. North Korea is becoming increasingly more bellicose and threatening South Korea and peace on the peninsula. China remains a looming threat to the Indo-Pacific. All of these only go to support Russia in its fight in Ukraine. None of them are divorced from each other. They are unified efforts to distract the Western world from the fight in Ukraine. They, too, are signals of rising aggression, as distractions on the world stage are tools to spread the attention and the resources of the US, Australia and our allies to breaking point. As I said, the world is witnessing two significant wars being fought by bad actors. That's not even to mention the ones in Yemen and the like. We cannot afford to stand idly by and let Ukraine lose this war. We cannot afford to give these aggressors the green light to continue this global attack on peace and democracy. We must continue to support Ukraine. A Russian victory in Ukraine would reverberate globally. A Russian victory in Ukraine would embolden authoritarian regimes. This conflict is not a distant issue; it is a real and present challenge to the values we hold dear. Australia must stand resolute in its support for Ukraine. Climate Change 39 13:18 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Today I rise to speak about the climate crisis. We are witnessing its consequences around the world and in our own country, and there is no good news when we look at the tipping points that scientists warn us about. I am very proud today to meet some of the representatives of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. Jess and Steph, thank you for coming to parliament, travelling in a group that includes people from Hobart, Perth, Sydney, Darwin and other cities and regions. Thank you for bringing your perspective and passion here to Canberra and to the parliament. The AYCC is made up of many people but mostly young leaders who have observed or experienced the impacts of climate change and are working hard in their local areas to build support for ambitious climate action. It is their future and it's a fight that we all share. The AYCC are empowering a generation of young people to protect our future, and they bring their views and evidence to parliament. They are particularly focused on campaigning to stop fracking, to make polluters pay and to ensure that no public money goes towards the disastrous Middle Arm gas precinct. The climate crisis and its dimensions are very clear. Scientists are in agreement about its dimensions and they are very clear about coal and gas—no new coal and gas. If we're going to keep our international goals around carbon pollution and stay under dangerous levels of warming then we must stop new coal and gas. We know that there are at least 117 coal and gas projects in the pipeline here in Australia. They are still being approved and expanded by this Labor government, and that is wrong. If we continue to open new coal and gas we'll miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all of us. All the news is bad on the crisis. We have to act. We need look no further than to the experience of desperate Queenslanders who, in the last few months, have battled tropical cyclones, very severe storms, widespread floods and bushfires down the east coast. This has been a source of great trauma to so many people across Australia, including kids whose schools have closed and whose education has been interrupted. There have been so many homes and businesses lost, a number of lives lost and great trauma for the families who have lost their loved ones. The flood cost in 2023 was $7.7 billion—a huge economic impact as well as a personal impact. From extreme heat to wildfires to rising sea levels, we are all affected by this climate crisis, but we don't all experience it in the same way. People on lower incomes and renters suffer so much more than people on higher incomes. The climate crisis is unjust because those that have done the least to cause the problem often feel its worst effects. That's certainly the case internationally, with poorer countries bearing the brunt, for example, of rising sea levels. The greatest source of intergenerational injustice in our country and across the planet is the climate crisis, and we urgently need climate action and climate justice. I want to say something briefly about the problem of greenwashing, which I know is a real concern to so many young people. Greenwashing is a sinister form of marketing and deception, where consumers are deceived into believing that an organisation, a company or its products are environmentally friendly. It's an obscene PR exercise. They're pretending they aren't part of the problem when in fact they are. Their propaganda, in many cases, about being part of the solution is deceptive. It enables them to grow and sell products and it is a new corporate industry. Many very big companies are in the business of greenwashing. We recently heard the CEO of Deloitte Australia, Adam Powick, claiming that there is a growing demand for climate reporting related to greenwashing, often creating expanding consulting opportunities. Deloitte themselves have published a considerable amount about the topic of greenwashing. How these big four consulting firms can talk about greenwashing while simultaneously doing work for and business with the fossil fuel industry is beyond me. It's a clear conflict of interest that undermines the integrity of the kind of greenwashing that we observe. We need robust independent analysis of greenwashing and we need the truth to be told about the effect of big corporations and all kinds of economic activities on climate and on nature so that we can properly unpack the impact on our climate. At present there can be no doubt that fossil fuel expansion puts the climate, our future and our frontline communities at risk. We must listen to young people, people like those from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, to understand the problem and to fuel action to create a better future for the generations to come. Health Care, Australian Centre for Disease Control 40 13:23 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Today I rise to speak about the Australian Centre for Disease Control. This is an exciting development for Australia, and I really welcome the government's commitment to establishing the institution. ACDC will help us to better coordinate and respond to infectious disease outbreaks—that's a given—and it's the bread and butter of health protection. But what I find truly exciting about this new institution is the possibility of putting prevention back on the agenda and putting serious downward pressure on chronic disease, including mental illness. A renewed focus on the prevention of poor health is sorely needed. Chronic disease is the biggest killer in Australia, making up 85 per cent of the total disease burden. Just a handful of chronic diseases contribute to nine in 10 deaths in Australia. And, yes, while we are living longer than ever, Australians are spending more of that precious time in ill health. This trend is unfortunately not slowing down. The data shows clearly that more and more Australians are cutting back on their lives due to pain, mobility issues, depression and anxiety. For too long we've focused purely on life span and we haven't focused on health span. We've not made the hard decisions or the hard investments that prevent poor health before it begins. That's generally because investing in long-term health outcomes doesn't align with meeting short-term political goals. I have seen in this place that the decision-making time horizon doesn't seem to stretch beyond the next election. When we're talking about preventive health, that's critical because these are long-term projects here in Australia that are so critical to our future. The result of this is that we are now spending an enormous amount of our money each year on treating potentially preventable diseases. The price tag is truly enormous: each year, $70 billion is spent directly on treating and managing chronic disease. That's more than the Commonwealth spends on schools and defence each year combined. Imagine freeing up some of that budget to spend on the diseases we can't prevent. While we are spending tens of billions on chronic disease each year, we are spending probably 1.6 per cent on preventive health. There's so much more that can and must be done. 'Preventive' is about far more than just TV campaigns; it's about improving active travel in our cities. It's about improving people's understanding of nutrition both in school and beyond. It's about funding mobility classes for seniors. And, as an aside, it's about having advice on how we structure our tax and regulatory settings to drive healthy habits and behaviours. What we need for that is an expert, independent body that is free to focus on prevention and free to provide advice that may be inconvenient to the government of the day. As a national institution, I believe there's only one place for the new CDC. Canberra is the home of the federal Public Service, the parliament, the Prime Minister, the high commissions, the embassies, our national security agencies, the department of health, the Department of Home Affairs—all the coordinating infrastructure and the levers of power needed to respond to any national threat. Canberra is also home to the Australian National University, our national university, which has a proven track record on training new public health professionals. This is what Canberra was built for, and it would make sense for the CDC to be here in the nation's capital. A CDC in Canberra would also greatly help our local health system, which is struggling with a number of local doctors working part-time in both the Public Service and clinical practice—what is called a portfolio career. I know there is significant appetite to see the CDC here in the ACT and to build something that will change the future of this country. Skin Cancer 41 13:28 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales During the break, I went and had some skin cancers removed—a normal process that you go through. There are many big issues we deal with, and some we don't know. I went and saw a dermatologist. As part of the breakdown on, shall we say, less than great plastic surgery or things—federal parliament cracked down on the use of surgeons, and it went right across the field of dermatologists. They're quite happy with that, apart from one small group. There is a group called Mohs surgery, which is the best treatment for basal cell carcinoma removal, and they are surgeons; there are about 90 in Australia. These people specialise in doing very precise, clean and restorative removal of skin cancers from people's faces. They have limited access to what they can call themselves. I think that, potentially, there is the opportunity to look at restoring the name of surgeons that was taken away from so many plastic surgeons for those specifics in the Mohs surgery area. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 It being 1.30 pm, we shall now proceed to two-minute statements. Channel Museum 41 13:30 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Recently I had the pleasure to present our national flag to the Channel Museum, based in Margate, Tasmania. This museum keeps the memories of the D'Entrecasteaux Channel area alive. I was welcomed by and guided through the museum by Judi, Mike, Andrew and Andrew, and Sarah. All of them are volunteers at the museum. In fact, it is operated by around 60 volunteers, mostly from the local community. The museum has an extensive artefact collection, including more than 6,000 pieces, all of them amassed over more than 40 years and all of them donated by the residents of the channel community. The museum has sections with objects and information on the social aspects of the channel area, displaying memorabilia of schools, sports clubs, the men and women who have served our country in defence, and the 1967 bushfire, which we know was such a significant and tragic event in the channel area. It shows the cultural aspects of the channel, showcasing Indigenous heritage and migrant history, and the economic aspects of the region, including old farming tools and displays in relation to the maritime, timber and apple industries, which have had such a historically important role to play in the channel. It even has an impressive collection of cameras, which these days, given most people have one of those on their mobile phone, I imagine would be quite novel to some of the schoolchildren as they're coming through having a tour of the museum. The museum provides stimulating educational experiences, like I said, with school visits and its 'Night at the Museum' conferences that are always booked out, and it offers a range of benefits to people with dementia by stimulating their cognitive function and by improving general feelings of wellbeing while enjoying a stroll down memory lane. Thank you and well done to the volunteers of the Channel Museum. Taxation 41 13:32 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria We know that hardworking Australians are feeling the pinch. It's clear that every single taxpayer deserves a tax cut, so that's exactly what we're doing. Under our plan, 87 per cent of Australians are better off; 95 per cent of nurses, teachers and truckies are better off; and 100 per cent of Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut. The Liberals' position on our tax plan is somewhat less clear. In fact, it can only be described as an absolute mess. First, the deputy leader came out and wanted to roll back our tax plan. After that, you rolled over and said yes to our tax plan. That's a word that we don't often hear from those opposite when they respond to our cost-of-living measures. It's usually, 'No, no, no.' But you've rolled over and said yes, and you're going down absolutely screaming about it. Now you're telling the Australian people that you might do some more tax cuts but without telling us exactly what you're going to cut to make that happen. You have had three different positions this week alone. What an absolute train wreck of an opposition! We don't know what the plan is going to be tomorrow, but we know that Mr Dutton will be right in that plan. We know that, under Mr Dutton, something has got to be getting the chop. Just look at his record as the worst health minister on record. He wanted to slap a fee on every visit to the doctor. He tried to charge Australians for showing up at the hospital. He tried to hike up medicine prices on the PBS, and he froze payments for GPs. Imagine if this man got the keys to the Australian budget. Middle East 42 13:34 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Israel's invasion of Gaza is catastrophic, with over 27,000 deaths in 123 days of war, many of them women and children, who too often bear the brunt of war. The women, girls and people who menstruate who are left fighting for their survival in Gaza face the additional challenge of period poverty, with no access to clean and safe menstrual products or essential reproductive health medications. ActionAid Australia and other activists have heard reports that displaced women have been using scraps from tents, old clothes and dirty towels as substitutes for period products. People don't have access to enough water, meaning they can't wash themselves or their makeshift sanitary products. The absence of period products can lead to severe, irreversible and long-term health complications. Safe and private areas for women and girls to manage their menstrual hygiene do not exist, which only inflicts further harm on those suffering through this crisis. Doctors Without Borders reports that requests for contraceptive pills have quadrupled as women seek to control or block their periods, given the absence of period products. Yet, in the midst of this humanitarian crisis, the Albanese government has suspended its funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Suspending life-saving funding to the largest relief provider in Gaza is nothing short of catastrophic. Women and girls in Gaza are desperately dependent on UNRWA for their very survival. Labor cannot keep backing an invasion that has killed over 27,000 people, many of them women and children, let alone withdraw funding from an essential service that would provide necessary menstrual products to hundreds of thousands of women and girls trying to survive without them. The Greens continue our calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire. Australia Day 42 13:36 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Along with most Australians, I celebrate Australia Day because it's a day to reflect on our wonderful country, which we are all truly blessed to be in. Sadly, because of the Left, this day is turning into yet another divisive issue that's fracturing our nation, and this has been spurred on by radical activists and virtue-signalling big businesses. As we've all seen, Woolworths made the unprecedented move to remove all Australia Day merchandise from their stores, saying that it was unpopular. This was followed by Cricket Australia announcing that they wouldn't recognise Australia Day in their test match, but, thankfully, due to public pressure they backflipped. Australians are sick to death of the constant lectures from inner-city activists, celebrities and big businesses who think they are taking the moral high ground but who, frankly are completely out of touch with everyday Australians. To Woolworths I say: rather than telling Australians what you think of their day, focus on delivering fresh groceries at reasonable prices to Australians who are hurting because of the cost of living. Australia, it's time to adopt a culture of courage. Don't be afraid to tell these businesses what you think. It's time to stand up and defend our values. We cannot continue to stoop down to the radical agenda that's threatening the future of our country. If we don't act, our country will change for the worse. We're not proud of everything in our history, but I am proud of the country we are today. This is the best country in the world. Be proud of it, and don't let the Left steal the joy of this great day. Tyler, Ms Lorraine Elizabeth, OAM 42 13:37 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Today I want to put on the record the remarkable legacy of my friend Lorraine Tyler. Lorraine left us on 12 January this year. She passed away at the end of what has been a long and difficult struggle with lung cancer, and when we lost Lorraine we lost an extraordinary advocate in the fight against lung cancer and the stigma that has surrounded it. I first met Lorraine in 2020, and I was struck by her passion, her wicked sense of humour and her generosity. Lorraine was suffering, but through her suffering she was determined to change things for other lung cancer sufferers like her. She wanted to see better screening, better detection and more lung cancer nurses. Lorraine came to this building many times. She came to my office many times. She met with Minister Butler, and I want to make it very clear that, when our government took the decision to introduce the National Lung Cancer Screening Program, that was off the back of advocacy from people like Lorraine. She made a tremendous difference in getting that $260 million announcement off the ground. Lorraine has an incredible legacy, and I want to pay tribute to that here in the Senate today. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. It has a five-year survival rate of 22 per cent. It is taking too many Australians. The stigma that surrounds it is persistent, and it hurts people when it shouldn't, when they are already suffering too much. Thank you, Lorraine, for everything you did. To Lorraine's wife, Kirsten, and her huge number of family and friends both here and in the UK: thank you for sharing her with the advocacy and with the parliament. She made a difference, and I honour her legacy today. Energy 43 13:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The World Economic Forum warned Australians, 'You will own nothing and be happy.' What they didn't say was that they'd use your smart meter to turn off your air conditioning and cut your lights off. It's just the latest conspiracy theory come true. For years, One Nation has been warning of the dystopian energy future Australia faces under this Labor-Green-Teals-Pocock government. That future is here already. Last week we learnt that Energex, Queensland's state owned power network, remotely throttled air conditioners in almost 170,000 homes and businesses six times in the past two months. This was done to shore up an increasingly fragile energy grid that's increasingly on the brink of collapse. It was done using the so-called PeakSmart program—it sounds wonderful—where households are convinced to accept state controlled smart meters in air conditioners in exchange for a small $400 rebate. Many are not aware they're handing over complete control of their electricity use to Energex. Many are not even aware they can say no to a smart meter. You don't have to put it in. What's appalling is the very idea that energy rationing is imposed on a state with the world's best coal reserves and abundant natural gas reserves. We have the energy; we can't use it. You'd hope we wouldn't end up like third-world African nations where electricity is purchased ahead of its use and only able to be used at certain times, yet this is already a reality in regional and remote Queensland, where households are put on 'economy' tariffs and can only use power for about eight hours a day. How long will it be before only the very wealthy have access to electricity 24 hours a day? That could well be not all that far off. This reckless Labor-Greens-Teal-Pocock cabal continues down the suicidal path of unreliable and expensive wind and solar in the pursuit of net zero fantasies and nightmares—a path the LNP initiated in 1997. Taxation 43 13:41 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales We know that the Prime Minister likes to speak out of both sides of his mouth. He loves an each-way bet, fighting Tories and playing political games. On over a hundred occasions, the Prime Minister looked Australians in the eye and told them that Labor had no plan to alter the stage 3 tax cuts. This continued throughout January, even though Treasury had already been preparing this Goliath breach of trust. In fact, even the ad agencies had been briefed. Yet he continued to mislead; to not tell the truth: the Dunkley deceit. Why is this policy backflip so egregious? It's because the Prime Minister campaigned on an increase in transparency and integrity—the 'my word is my bond' statement. Well his word is no longer a bond. In fact, it's about as feeble as tissue paper in a hurricane. No-one can ever believe a world he ever says again. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Hughes, I'll just caution you on your language. Senator HUGHES 273828 Madam Acting President, I have not said the word that the President doesn't like us to say. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 There are many other words. Senator HUGHES 273828 Well no-one can ever believe a world he says again. There may be some credence to his defence if it were the first time he'd broken faith with the electors, but, alas, this is now just the next broken promise. There was $275 off your power bills—the Voldemort of figures, the number that shall never speak its name, for those opposite. No changes to superannuation, yet here we are with significant and unprecedented changes, especially the ludicrous proposal of unrealised capital gains. What's next? The family home, capital gains, a death tax or negative gearing? How will we know? What we do know is that we cannot believe that what they say is what they will actually do. (Time expired) Taxation 44 13:44 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I'm proud to say that as of 1 July the Albanese government will deliver a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer—that's 13.6 million taxpayers, not just some. Under Labor's plan, a teacher on $80,000 will get a tax cut of more than $1,600, and a nurse on $76,000 will get a tax cut of more than $1,500. Labor's tax cuts are designed to provide meaningful and immediate cost-of-living relief without adding pressure on inflation. This is a fair and responsible plan, responding to the economic conditions of 2024. I was truly shocked yesterday to hear that the 'no-alition' said yes to Labor's tax plan. Honestly, I thought that they'd forgotten that word after saying no to cheaper child care, no to cheaper medicines and no to cheaper electricity. By supporting our tax cuts, the opposition recognise that our plan is better for Australia. But what I don't understand is why the opposition didn't look at our other cost-of-living reforms and do the same. Honestly, I'm constantly confused about what the Liberal and National parties really stand for. They say that Labor should do more, yet they come in here and vote down every cost-of-living relief measure without shame. They say they're supporting Labor's tax plan, but they take every opportunity in media to talk it down. Just the other day, I was appalled to hear Senator Hume say that our plan won't make a difference to the weekly household budget. Labor's tax cuts will make sure that there's a difference for working families, which is why Australians overwhelmingly support our plan. Senator Hume should spend less time in the media and more time on the ground to hear what matters to everyday Australians. Labor's tax plan is better for the economy, better for families, and better for the household budget. Why can't those opposite just admit it? (Time expired) Medicare 44 13:46 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Going to the GP should be free. Medicare should cover your brain and your teeth. As I reflected on the 40th anniversary of the existence of Medicare, I couldn't help but reflect on the way in which people are still not able to access basic health care. In a cost-of-living crisis such as the community are now in, Labor should provide the bulk-billing rebates to ensure that people can actually get to a GP; they should reinstate the subsidised mental health sessions and take them back to the 20 sessions that you were able to receive previously; and it is beyond time that Medicare fully cover dental care for everyone. Across the country, less than one in four GPs currently still bulk-bill. We have 500 fewer bulk-billing clinics this year than we did last year. The average out-of-pocket cost for seeing a GP is now over $41. In my home state of WA, the city of Perth has one of the lowest rates of bulk billing in the country. I'll say that again: Perth has one of the lowest rates of bulk billing in the country, at 10.3 per cent, second only to Tassie, where the rate is 0.9 per cent. People are having to choose between the essential health care that they need and putting food on the table. So many people cannot afford these out-of-pocket costs that sometimes spiral as high as 120 bucks to see a GP or into the hundreds of dollars to see a psychologist. We must tax the billionaires and make dental— (Time expired) Taxation 44 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria This Labor government is telling anyone who will listen—anyone at all—that it's going to legislate a tax cut for everybody. But what they didn't tell you is that they broke a promise and that the cuts amount to just a few coffees a week. The truth is that, while this government was promising to give people a few extra bucks, it was taking away people's money by an increase on fuel tax. It's even worse than you might imagine. The government taxes your fuel and then—get this—the government taxes that tax. Here's how it works: the federal government charges a fuel excise on every litre of fuel you buy and then charges GST on that excise amount. It's literally double dipping. It's a tax on a tax, if you will. Last week, the fuel excise was 48.8c per litre plus a 10 per cent GST on the excise and the fuel. Around a third of your total fuel bill is tax. Don't forget that you've probably already lost a third of your money on your income tax before you even get to the servo. It's madness. But wait. There's more. We're not finished yet. That fuel excise is indexed, so it increases every six months in line with inflation. This week the excise jumped to 49.6c per litre—plus GST, of course. While indexation applies to government fuel excise, it does not apply to income tax brackets. You have less net income and you pay more for your fuel. It's a win-win for Treasurer Chalmers, really. Governments sure know how to legally steal from taxpayers. In my opinion, tax is theft. Prime Minister 45 13:50 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I want to tell a story about a bloke who's a blatant and unapologetic—I can't say the word, but it rhymes with 'fire' and begins with the letter 'l'. This someone is a purveyor of untruths. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator McGrath, I'll just caution you as well. Senator McGRATH 217241 He's a purveyor of untruths, a fibber, a fabulist, a fabricator, a deceiver, a maligner, a befuddler, a hoodwinker, a hornswoggler, an equivocator, a prevaricator, a falsifier, a fabricator of falsehoods or, as the Italians would say, un bugiardo. Of course, these are words that all apply to Prime Minister Anthony Norman Albanese. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator McGrath, I will just caution you about impugning another member. Senator McGRATH 217241 As Leader of the Labor Party, he campaigned religiously on bringing back truth, trust and transparency to government—three words beginning with the letter 't' that should never be seen in the same sentence or the same room with Labor and Prime Minister Albanese. We have a Prime Minister who, on the issue of tax, looked down the camera—as I am doing now—and said to the Australian people: 'Trust me. My word is my bond.' But guess what? He was holding his fingers like this, wasn't he, fellow senators? The Prime Minister, this purveyor of untruths, misled the Australian people at the last election and has misled the Australian people since the last election about the issue of taxes. If he misled you back in 2022, this Prime Minister and this Labor Party will mislead you when it comes to changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax on the family home. Labor keep saying they have no plans. Guess what? They said they had no plans to change the tax rates. Guess what? They've done that. Once a purveyor of untruths, always a purveyor of untruths. Fibromyalgia 45 13:52 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Almost one million Australians, including many people close to me, are affected by fibromyalgia, and yet it's still a misunderstood condition. It affects people of all ages—mostly women but also men—and they have to deal with debilitating symptoms including pain, fatigue, brain fog and many other symptoms. For too long, calls from people with fibromyalgia have been ignored, with many being stigmatised because of their condition. Those unable to work because of their condition face the impossible task of navigating the welfare system and the NDIS to get the support they need. There needs to be more support, training and compassion. In my employment services days, I saw that backing those who need it can lift people up. Just recently I met with Arthritis Australia—with Jane from Tassie, who lives with fibromyalgia and has worked with Arthritis & Osteoporosis Tasmania to help Tasmanians living with the condition. I also met with Dr Sam Whittle, the vice president of the Australian Rheumatology Association, who is a leading expert on fibromyalgia. They told me that the cost-of-living crisis and the rheumatology workforce shortage are pushing people to breaking point. Arthritis Australia recently surveyed people with fibromyalgia, and here's what they found: 65 per cent of people had to cut back on fibromyalgia treatments to pay for basic living expenses and 50 per cent had to cut back on other living expenses to afford the health care they need for their fibromyalgia. People who have this disease are forced to decide between food and treatment, which is only making it more difficult to live with fibromyalgia. Through medication, exercise and physiotherapy, fibromyalgia can be treated and managed. Seeking treatment is costly, but boosting the number of allied health appointments through the chronic disease management plans would make an immediate difference to out-of-pocket costs. People like Jane and so many other Australians are counting on fibromyalgia being taken seriously. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 45 13:54 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria This country signed on to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948, in the aftermath of the Holocaust. According to the convention, we have the duty to do everything in our power to prevent and punish genocide. But this country has a long history of failing to address genocide, and intentionally so. Australia did not enshrine the convention in domestic law until 2002, when it criminalised genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes—the very worst of humanity. The government at the time ensured that no such crimes before 2002 can be prosecuted here, a convenient way of washing its hands of historic acts of genocide. They also gave powers to the Attorney-General to approve or reject the prosecution of any genocide case here. This is known as the AG's fiat. This veto power undermines the very intent of the convention, where we all have a duty to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. There is not even a right to appeal the AG's decisions. Given the potential of any government or its agencies to be involved in such crimes, this lack of accountability and transparency prevents justice being achieved. This has major impacts on our ability to prevent and punish genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, with unimaginable potential consequences. This is why today I will introduce a bill to remove the AG's fiat and get justice in this country. (Time expired) Business Investment 46 13:56 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales In the government for vested interests, there are many skewed priorities. One of the most skewed priorities in recent months has been the government's decision to review the professional investor test. The government has decided to do this at the urging of the corporate cop ASIC, which has a lamentable enforcement record. As we have discovered in the course of this parliament, this government, the Labor government, has actively helped ASIC obfuscate the Senate's inquiries into its lax law enforcement. The reality of a lower test for professional investors is that there would be more paternalism and more people subjected to ASIC's appalling and weak enforcement protocols. This would also have the bizarre effect of damaging angel investors and making investments that should be available to all Australians the preserve of only the uber-rich. It is a bizarre priority for a government which has a very light economic policy agenda to focus on an area where there's been no consumer detriment, other than where ASIC has failed to enforce the law and to protect retail investors. It is a very bizarre priority, and we will be undertaking further inquiries through the economics committee's processes. Queensland: Natural Disasters 46 13:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Recent weeks have been incredibly tough for many Queenslanders, following ex-tropical cyclones Jasper and Kirrily in the far north, the severe storms that lashed parts of Logan and the Gold Coast on Christmas Day and the devastating floods that swept through suburbs across Brisbane's north just last week. But, after heading out and speaking with Bray Park locals impacted by floods, as we've continually seen in the past amongst the devastation—the community response to natural disasters across Australia is always an excellent demonstration of our nation's character, with people pitching in and doing what they can to help their community and get people back on their feet. The federal government has played its part in ensuring Queenslanders receive the assistance they need to begin the recovery process and start the daunting task of rebuilding. To date, the Commonwealth has released over $58 million worth of financial assistance, through the Australian government disaster recovery payment and the disaster recovery allowance, for those impacted. Thanks to first responders, the SES, the Defence Force and those members of the community that have provided support and assistance to those impacted across the state. I also say to insurance companies that we will be watching your actions closely; do the right thing by Queenslanders. The strong collaboration between the three tiers of government has been an excellent demonstration of representatives doing what they were elected to do: putting in the hard work to help those in need. The days and weeks following a natural disaster can be the hardest and most challenging, both emotionally and financially. I urge people to seek help if they need it. But, as the recovery continues over the coming months, the Albanese government will be there to do our bit to ensure that we're supporting Queenslanders through this difficult time. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for two-minute statements has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 46 14:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. The Prime Minister said last night: I was pretty up-front in December. I said we were looking at ways for cost-of-living pressures to be relieved. But Treasury confirmed on Monday that it was preparing work on changing the stage 3 tax cuts from 11 December, and, when asked about this on 21 December, the Prime Minister said: Well, we've made no decisions along those lines. We're not reconsidering that position. Will you now apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for the deliberate way in which he has misled the Australian people? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, on the second day of question time after we table in the House this important legislation, finally the coalition get close to asking a question on the tax package, but they don't actually want to ask about the content. They have to ask about time lines. It's pretty extraordinary, isn't it? Well, you know what? What is so interesting is that you fulminated, you used words such as that this was such a betrayal, a treachery or a trickery—all of these things—and now you're voting for it. If you really thought this was the wrong thing to do, you would vote against it and you would say you'd repeal it. You know it's the right thing to do, and the fact that you are voting for it simply proves that. I watched some of Nemesis last night—not all of it. I just had the computer on iview and tried to fast-forward through the bits, and I have to say one of the things that struck me was the extent to which the previous Treasurer— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I believe that was you. I'm going to ask you to withdraw. Senator McGrath 217241 I withdraw, for order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Please continue, Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU You certainly tell it straight in that program, as always, Senator McGrath. I was struck by the way in which the approach of the then Treasurer, Mr Morrison, to tax reform was to leak it. There was the Prime Minister of the day and the Leader of the Government in the Senate of the day, and they had a furious row because it was leaked. Do you know what we did and what the Prime Minister did? The Prime Minister took it. The Treasurer took it to ERC. We dealt with it at ERC. We took it to cabinet, we took it to caucus and we announced it. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I have Senator Hume on her feet. Senator Birmingham, I have one of your senators on her feet. Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 On a point of order, Madam President: the evidence that was heard on Monday was that cabinet and ERC were circumvented. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, that is not a point of order. Senator Hume 266499 You broke your own rules. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Hume, when I ask you to resume your seat, please do so. Do not continue disorderly conduct. Minister, you've got 10 seconds. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you. We followed the appropriate process. It's a pity those opposite are so unfamiliar with it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria After the Prime Minister clearly demonstrates that when he says, 'We have no plans; we are not considering that,' what that actually means is, 'We are planning to do exactly that,' how do you expect Australians to believe you when you say, as you said recently, that Labor has no plans to introduce changes to negative gearing? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It's interesting, isn't it? I'm asked how Australians can believe anybody. Well, how are they supposed to believe a coalition that actually is complaining about a change it's voting for? How are they supposed to believe that, and how are they supposed to believe that you're the party of lower taxes? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 I specifically asked if you have no plans to change negative gearing— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Hume, I presume you're standing on a point of order. I'm not a mind-reader, so you need to actually state that if you're standing on a point of order. But I think you are now debating with Senator Wong. I am going to listen carefully to the minister's response. If there is a need to redirect, I will. Senator WONG 00AOU I put this to you, Senator Hume: You wouldn't expect me to pull out one ingredient or one part of tax reform, so I'm not going to play the 'yes this is good, 'no this is bad', the rule in, rule out, I'm not going to do that. That was your deputy leader, Sussan Ley—oh, dear me! So there you go. They want us to rule things in or out, but I notice the deputy leader of the opposition is ducking and weaving and doesn't want to rule things in or out anyway. This lot over here used to be to the party of lower taxes. We're the party of lower taxes. This is what the Dutton opposition has sunk to. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a second supplementary? 14:06 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria When asked to rule out implementing a new tax on the family home, the Prime Minister said, 'That is at the bottom of the drawer.' Who is ruling anything in? Will you now take the opportunity to categorically rule out to Australians any change to the tax on their family homes under the Albanese government? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm not going to call the minister until there is order across the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I have called order! 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Do you know what is in the bottom drawer? A pathetic, recycled scare campaign from the coalition. That's what's in the bottom drawer, and we have seen it again today from the party that prided itself on being the party of tax cuts and lower taxes. They're now forced to vote for the tax cuts that we are putting forward because they know they're better. The party that used to be the party of tax cuts is now conceding the Australian Labor Party is the better party when it comes to tax policy. The party of the scare campaign's deputy leader herself said, 'Rule in, rule out—I'm not going to do that.' You should listen to your deputy leader, Senator Hume, before you're given and take questions like that to question time in the Senate. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 48 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Bushby, Mr David 48 14:07 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'd like to acknowledge that former Senator David Bushby is in the chamber. I'm not sure what he thinks of the standard of question time. Hopefully, it will improve. Welcome. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Women's Economic Security 48 14:08 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia It will improve right now. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister please inform the Senate how the Albanese government is helping to combat gender inequality and improve the lives of women across the country? In particular, has the Albanese government responded to cost-of-living pressures, and how will delivering a tax cut to every single one of the 6.5 million hardworking women taxpayers assist? 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Smith for that excellent question, and I thank her and so many of my colleagues for their ongoing commitment to improving the position of working women in this country. We on this side of the chamber know that women's equality and financial security isn't just a nice-to-have; it's an economic and social imperative. Under our tax cuts, from this year, every working woman in Australia who pays tax will get a tax cut—6.5 million hardworking women, who make so many valuable contributions to our community, will pay less tax. Senator WONG 00AOU Perhaps listen to this, Senator Ruston, before you interject again. The vast majority—nine in 10—will get a bigger tax cut than under Mr Morrison's plan. The Labor Party, the Albanese Labor government, want women to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. Treasury modelling also indicates that Labor's tax cuts will increase labour supply by twice as much as under Mr Morrison's plan, primarily because it will drive an increase in women's participation. That's what the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts do. Treasury advice says that this plan will help by enhancing the participation benefits of the tax cuts, especially for women, and distributing the future impact of bracket creep more evenly. We are a government that is already delivering positive economic outcomes for women. We are addressing the cost of living and reducing barriers to workforce participation. We are delivering cheaper child care, boosting paid parental leave, supporting economic security for single parents and ensuring that women get a fair deal at work. And now we have a tax plan which ensures that every Australian woman will pay less tax. You would have thought those opposite might be celebrating that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a first supplementary? 14:10 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia We know that women make up the majority of the workforce in so many critical professions, including our teachers, care workers in the aged sector, and nurses. We also know that these hardworking women are often on lower or middle incomes. Why is it so important that these workers get a bigger tax cut under Labor's tax plan? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Smith. And Senator Smith is right: we do know that so many of the workers in lower-paid industries—teachers, care workers, workers in the aged-care sector and nursing—are women, and we know the extent to which that drives the gender pay gap. And we know why it's so important for women, for families and for all of us—for our economies—that that be remedied. Women make up 80 per cent of our primary school teachers, nurses and care workers. These are workers who deliver for our kids, for those who are sick, for those who are vulnerable. They are making invaluable contributions but, unfortunately, we know they are likely to be in low- and middle-income jobs. Well, Labor's tax cuts deliver for these women: 96 per cent of receptionists will be better off, as well as 97 per cent of registered nurses, 97 per cent of aged- and disability-care workers and 98 per cent of primary school teachers. This is Labor delivering for working women in this country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary? 14:12 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, can you please explain why the Albanese government's plan is the right plan for these economic times and why it is backed by Treasury and economic experts? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Smith. Well, the Treasury advice is crystal clear: Labor's tax cuts are the right move. We know that cost-of-living pressures have disproportionately impacted low- and middle-income households and we know that these tax cuts for all Australian taxpayers will help with that without adding to inflation. Of course we also know it's the right thing to do because those opposite—despite the hot air, despite the dramatic language, despite the fact that the deputy leader said, 'We will fight this legislation, even though we don't know what it looks like'—are voting for it. They're voting for it because they know in their heart of hearts that this is the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for working women. It's the right thing to do for middle Australia. It is the right thing to do for our economy— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU and no amount of shouting at me is going to hide the fact that you have conceded that we are the party of lower taxes and we are the party of a better tax plan. (Time expired) Taxation 49 14:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, can you inform the Senate of how much extra in taxes Australians will pay over the next 10 years because your government broke its promise to the Australian people to implement the legislated stage 3 tax cuts? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, and I welcome the opportunity to talk about Labor's tax plan—the tax plan that the opposition is now supporting, the tax plan that the opposition is now accepting is the right thing to do, is the right policy to put in place to ensure that people are paying lower taxes and getting more money into their pockets sooner and a fairer share of those tax cuts than they would have got under the plan of Scott Morrison from five years ago. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume you seat. Senator Cash. Senator Cash I0M President, the point of order is in relation to relevance. Unless we are playing word association games in the Senate, the question was very clear: how much extra will Australians pay over the next 10 years because you have broken your promise to the Australian people? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cash. Your question does go to tax cuts, but I will remind the minister of the specifics of your question. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING I only had 36 seconds to lead into that answer— Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm sure the good senator has read the Treasury analysis. Under our plan the vast majority of taxpayers will pay less tax and pay less tax over 10 years than they would have under the Morrison plan. That's because ours is a better plan that gives bigger tax cuts to more Australians. Some 11½ million more taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut under our tax plan. I know the opposition want to concentrate on what might happen in 10 years time because they don't want to focus on what's going to happen right now. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Cash. Senator Cash I0M Again, President, the point of order is in relation to relevance. Again, unless we are playing a word association game in the Senate, this is about the broken promise and how much more Australians will pay under your government over the next 10 years. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cash. I believe Minister Gallagher did go to that just prior to you standing up. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING I did go to that point, and the Treasury analysis is very clear on this. I don't know how many of you have read it before you decided that you would oppose it and then decide you would support our tax cuts, but that goes to exactly the question that Senator Cash asked. The vast majority will pay less over the next 10 years. It also pre-supposes no further tax changes in the next 10 years. We've already proven that we'll be focused on making sure that we return bracket creep and do it in a fair way that's responsible to the budget. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a first supplementary? 14:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Over the last two years on more than 100 occasions, the Prime Minister looked Australians in the eye and told them he wouldn't change tax cuts that were already locked in. He also told Australians, 'My word is my bond,' and he asked them to trust him. Minister, isn't it true that, because the Prime Minister broke his promise to the Australian people to implement the legislated stage 3 tax cuts, the effect of bracket creep means Australians will pay an extra $28 billion in taxes over the next 10 years? 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Cash for the supplementary question. I do find it interesting that the opposition are complaining and moaning so much about a policy they actually support—a policy that they have agreed is the right thing to do at the right time. It's the right policy, because Labor is the party of lower taxes, and you know we got the policy settings right. Do you know what Australians can trust about our Prime Minister? Our Prime Minister will make the right decision on their behalf—not the convenient decision, not the easy decision, but to actually make a decision based on the national interests and the best interests of millions of Australians. That's what you can't stand, because you know he was right. You know the plan's right, and that's why you're voting for it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a second supplementary? 14:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, is '$28 billion' a number you will never say, just like no-one on your side will ever utter the words '$275' again? That was the amount you promised Australians before the election you would reduce their yearly power bills by—another broken promise. How can Australians ever again trust anything your government says? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I do find it interesting that it's day 2 of this, and you're scrambling around the outside. You can't actually talk about the policy. You can't talk about the plan that we've put in place. It's all about everything else. It's all about 10 years time and what might happen when a fourth-term Albanese government is making decisions. It is interesting to see that you've clearly locked yourself out of governing for the next 10 years. You want to talk about something in 10 years time? How about we talk about what's happening right now? How about we talk about what's happening on 1 July? How about we talk about teachers, nurses, aged-care workers, truck drivers, receptionists and tradies? How about we talk about them? Do you know what happens for them on 1 July? Not in 10 years—right now. Do you know what's going to happen when that bill passes? Every one of those people will get a bigger tax cut. Gas Industry 50 14:20 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Minister Farrell. The government is currently developing its future gas strategy, which is using the gas industry's false talking points that gas is necessary as a transition fuel and firms up renewables. The science says that the atmosphere cannot absorb emissions from the current fleet of coal and gas plants, let alone any new ones, without climate collapse. Why is this government using the gas industry's false talking points instead of implementing a steady phase-out of gas? 14:20 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cox for her question. I think the gas industry is perfectly correct here. Gas is a transition fuel. In a perfect world where we know that there are serious future issues with climate change, it would be terrific if we could turn a switch and go from fossil fuels to renewable fuels. But we know that that's absolutely impossible. No country in the world has managed to today turn off gas and tomorrow be completely reliant on renewable fuels. This government intends to be a renewable superpower. We're going to transform this economy in a way that that mob over there would have never ever even contemplated doing, but, if we're going to do that, then we have to keep the lights on between now and when we can make that change. The fuel that we're going to do that with is gas. Without gas in that intervening period, we cannot make the transition, nor will we have the support of the Australian population to do it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, first supplementary? 14:22 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Just last week, the Minister for Resources told a conference in Japan that Australia's gas is helping lower Japanese emissions. More fossil fuels increase emissions, and Japan's latest figures show that their emissions are up by two per cent. Why is the minister again using false talking points provided to her by the gas industry? 14:23 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cox for her first supplementary question. We are very lucky in this country to have a minister like Minister Madeleine King. She understands the resources industry like nobody else I know, and she, of course, understands just how important it is for this country to honour all of the agreements that we have made over a period of time. There's nothing worse than a country breaching its agreements, and, of course, this government and this minister, Minister King, have absolutely no intention of breaching any of the international agreements that we have made, whether it's with Japan or any other country. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, second supplementary? 14:24 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia The future gas strategy has solely focused on the phase-out of gas, not developing plans to prop up the dying industry and help out their political donors. So when will the Minister for Resources start adopting advice from climate scientists and government agencies instead of the propaganda that's being pedalled by the gas industry? 14:24 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cox for her second supplementary question. Right now. Taxation 51 14:24 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. All Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut under the Albanese Labor government's tax cut plan. That's all 13.6 million taxpayers, not just some. Minister, you have often said in this place that Australian women are at the core of the decisions that this government takes. Can the minister please explain why the Labor government's tax cut plan is better for Australian women? 14:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the question and for all of her advocacy around the needs of women and improving economic equality for women, particularly in the state of Victoria. Labor's tax cuts will put more money back in the pockets of Australian women. The cuts will provide cost-of-living relief and will mean that women can be and are able to pick up an extra shift or an extra day of work if they want to and then keep a larger proportion of what they earn. Labor's plan will see a tax cut for every single woman who pays tax in Australia, and our plan will see women taxpayers receive a tax cut of, on average, $1,649 from 1 July. Nine out of 10 of those women will receive an additional average tax cut of $707 compared to the former plan. That's 5.8 million women receiving more than they would have. Under our tax cuts, childcare workers, disability carers, aged-care workers, nurses and teachers are amongst those who will benefit the most, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers to receive a bigger tax cut compared to the Morrison plan. These are also those highly feminised industries, as all of us know in this chamber, with workforces that are over 80 per cent women. Of course they are vital industries that contribute to our economy and our quality of life. Labor's tax cuts—and the Treasury analysis shows this—will have a positive impact on women's workforce participation. As outlined in the Treasury advice, the plan is projected to support a boost of 630,000 additional hours per week worked by women. When we looked at these tax cuts, when we changed our position, we did so mindful of the impact they would have on women, because women are at the centre of government decision-making in this government and of the policy decisions that we make. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:27 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Minister, I know that the women of Victoria are working hard. They are juggling work and family, with many of them working in critical sectors that support our whole community, and they're also facing cost-of-living pressures. Can you outline how many women in Victoria and across the nation more broadly will get a bigger tax cut under Labor's tax cut plan? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the supplementary. I can confirm that every woman taxpayer in Victoria will get a tax cut from 1 July. Of those, 1½ million women, or 90 per cent, will get a bigger tax cut than they would under the Morrison proposal. In Tasmania, every woman taxpayer—140,000 of them—will get a tax cut and 94 per cent of them will get a bigger tax cut. In WA, every woman taxpayer will get a tax cut and, of those 600,000 women, 90 per cent will get a bigger tax cut. In South Australia, 93 per cent will get a bigger tax cut. In the ACT, every single woman will get a tax cut. Of those, 120,000 women, or 86 per cent, will get a bigger tax cut. In the Northern Territory, 83 per cent will get a bigger tax cut. In New South Wales, 1.8 million women, or 88 per cent, will get a bigger tax cut. And in Queensland, 1.2 million women, or 92 per cent, will get a bigger tax cut. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you for outlining those important statistics, Minister. Women's economic equality has been at the heart of the Albanese government's policy since day one. We can see this in the careful analysis of Labor's tax cuts and their impact on women. Can the minister outline how these tax reforms work with other Labor reforms for women? 14:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the supplementary question. As Senator Stewart knows, because she's part of the first majority women government in this country, and I work so closely with all of my colleagues from the status of women committee and more broadly, our decision-making has been focused on driving women's economic equality, whether it be in our policies around cheaper child care, whether it's around our modernised PPL, whether it's the work we've put into the women's safety front, or whether it's implementing the Respect@Work report and all 55 recommendations. It's about transparency and accountability on the gender pay gap. It's about making sure we address inequality where we see it, like in the single parenting payment and some of those interactions. There is more to do, but this tax plan, Labor's lower taxes plan, will significantly improve women's interaction with the tax system and return more money to their pockets. (Time expired) Climate Change: Agriculture 52 14:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? Senator Gallagher ING Could you repeat the question? We missed the last 15 seconds of it. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 14:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, I am awaiting statistics as we speak, but what I can say to you, and as someone who was the climate change minister, is that there is opportunity in agriculture to deal with climate change. As you know, for many years the National Farmers Federation had a much more forward-leaning policy than the coalition when it came to agriculture and climate change. I'm advised it's in the order of 16 to 17 per cent. Thank you very much, Senator Watt. For the year to June 2023, the agriculture sector was responsible for 17.7 per cent of Australia's total annual greenhouse gas emissions. Modelling by ABARES shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. I recall that one of the early reports I read which made me so much more acutely aware of the risk to agriculture of climate change was a report which CSIRO did many years ago, before we won government in 2007. It modelled that Goyder's line would move south of Clare. For anybody from South Australia—and I know that would be very bad news for Senator Farrell in particular—who knows what the mid-north is like, that is a very frightening prospect. We do think it is important to look at how it is that our food and fibre producers can best adapt to a changing climate. Many are already doing so and are obviously involved in the discussions with government about climate policy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As the World Economic Forum were meeting in Davos last month, the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, stated that agriculture accounts for between 26 and 33 per cent of world emissions and will account for half a degree of warming by 2050. He further stated that a warming planet will grow less food, not more, and so farming needs to be a major focus of reducing human carbon dioxide production. Minister, how do you reconcile the production of food accounting for between 26 and 33 per cent of emissions with your figure of 17.7? 14:33 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There's a different denominator, Senator. One is as a percentage of Australian emissions, and one is as a percentage of global emissions. I also am unclear from the context and detail of the quote you gave me whether or not Special Envoy Kerry was dealing with food production further downstream as well. I don't know what he's referring to. But I certainly agree with what he was saying about the implications for food security. What is also true is that not only is that a substantial issue for Australia, because it will affect our capacity to produce the levels of grain production we have, which is obviously very important for our economy, but also the nations on who this will fall most hard are those nations who have the least capacity to be resilient to this change. If you look at countries like Bangladesh— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The methane cycle, soil carbon sequestration and forest carbon sequestration absorb all Australian agricultural emissions, meaning Australian agriculture contributes nothing to global emissions. Minister, is the war on farming not about the environment but rather about creating a false scarcity of food to force the adoption of laboratory-grown food-like substances that predatory billionaires own for their profit and control? 14:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, there's a lot in that question, but I want to go back to the fundamental proposition: climate change is already affecting our agricultural production now. I read to you the figures earlier: ABARES modelling shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. No, you don't like the facts, and we know— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick? Senator Rennick 283596 A point of order, Madam President: models are not facts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, that's a debating point. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Roberts, I understand your views on this. I disagree with them. What I would say to you is this: if you go and talk to a lot of Australia's primary producers, if you go and talk to primary producers in the Pacific— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Canavan. Senator WONG 00AOU or South-East Asia, the truth is people are already experiencing the impact of climate change on agricultural production. We might want to wish it away for ideological reasons, as Senator Canavan does, but— (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm going to wait for silence. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm going to call an opposition senator, so those senators interjecting are wasting her time. Motor Vehicles 53 14:37 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria ():  My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The Australian Automotive Dealers Association has said that Labor's targets, 'will be difficult to achieve, especially for utes and large SUVs,' and, 'This could have consequences for affordability and vehicle choice.' Minister, will you provide a clear guarantee to the Australian people that there will be no increase in the purchase price of any model of four-wheel drive, ute or SUV as a result of the government's new vehicle efficiency standard? Yes or no? 14:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator McKenzie. I can actually do better than that. I can do better than giving commitments from the Albanese government about this point. What I can do is point you to the remarks of Mr Fletcher, who was the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities in May 2018, when the former government, momentarily, was going to introduce fuel efficiency standards. And what did he have to say about this? What Mr Fletcher, a member of the Liberal Party, a minister at the time, said was: So when fuel efficiency standards were introduced in the US, the most popular models before introduction stayed the most popular models after introduction. Essentially, what Americans call pickup trucks and what we'd call utes, like the Chevy Silverado. There wasn't a material change in price and we don't expect that there would be a material change in price here. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 A point of order on relevance: the discussion paper released goes to cheaper cars. I am asking the government to back in Minister Bowen's claim around the costs of cars. Are they going to go up or down? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKenzie, I will direct the minister to your question. Senator WATT 245759 As I say, I can do better than directing Senator McKenzie to a comment from this government; I can direct her to Mr Fletcher's remarks where he said— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I have asked you to give a response to Senator McKenzie as a government response. It's okay to refer to a previous government in passing comments, but the question is directed to you as the minister. Senator Wong 00AOU A point of order: President, I would make this point—that the fact that a minister is referencing a previous minister does not mean it's not directly relevant to the topic that's being put. So I'd ask you to consider that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Wong. I do appreciate that, which is why I gave the minister some leniency. I agree that it is reasonable to quote a previous minister, but I think it's time now to move on to Minister Watt's response. Senator WATT 245759 There is no evidence whatsoever, from international experiences, that prices of vehicles under a new fuel efficiency standard will increase in the way Senator McKenzie suggests. Mr Fletcher made that point back in May 2018, when he said that, when America introduced fuel efficiency standards, 'There wasn't a material change in price and we don't expect that there would be a material change in price here.' But what we have, as expected, is the same old scare campaigns from the National Party. What we have is 'ending the weekend mark 2'. I notice that Senator McKenzie went awfully close to reinventing the weekend attack when she said on Sky News on 5 February that Australians want the work car to be their weekend car. They had to get the word 'weekend' in there somewhere, Pavlovian style. 'We're almost Scottish en masse where we don't want a work car and a separate weekend car. We like them to be together.' That's Senator McKenzie. Unfortunately for Senator McKenzie, Senator Sharma was on Sky News the same day, and we'll get to that shortly. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:41 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The Australian Automobile Association and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries have expressed doubts over the government's modelling on the impacts of its carbon emission policies for SUVs, four-wheel drives and utes and has called for the government to release its modelling. The government paid ACIL Allen almost $750,000 of taxpayers' money to undertake that modelling. Minister, when will the government release the full taxpayer-funded modelling for public scrutiny on this? 14:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator McKenzie. Senator McKenzie may not yet have taken the opportunity to read the 80 pages of analysis in the analysis statement that was released by Ministers Bowen and King just the other day. I encourage her to do so because she'll probably find a lot of answers in there to the questions she asked. Senator McKenzie does refer to some statements made by some stakeholders who are opposed to this. But I've also noted comments from the RACQ, the NRMA and a range of other groups who are backing what the government is doing here. But it's not only stakeholders who are backing what the government's doing here, because— Senator McKenzie 207825 Point of order. Senator WATT 245759 We don't want to hear what your own people are saying, do we! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, before I come to you, I will remind you to stand, and then, when I call you, you tell me you have a point of order. But you've said you've got a point of order, so please go ahead. Senator McKenzie 207825 It's on relevance. Senator Watt asked if I'd read the document. I have— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, that— Senator McKenzie 207825 and it references this report and this modelling, and they haven't released it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie 207825 When will you release it? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, order! Senator McKenzie, you rose on a point of order and then you went immediately to a debating point. I called you to order. You didn't come to order, and I repeatedly had to call you. That is disorderly. There is no point of order. The minister is being relevant. Senator WATT 245759 It's not only the stakeholders like the RACQ, the NRMA and many others who are supporting us. Senator Sharma made an early appearance in his new career as a senator on Sky News on 5 February 2024. He said: Well, we are adopting increasing fuel efficiency standards and that's a good thing. I don't have a problem with that. We should be doing that, and the fleet should be progressively getting cleaner and a lower intensity of emissions. Good on you, Senator Sharma. You know the right thing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary? 14:43 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The Motor Trades Association of Australia says that 'there are no internal combustion engines that can hit' the government's 2029 carbon targets. Based on the government's own Green Vehicle Guide, the proposed carbon penalties for popular SUVs are 1,500 bucks per Toyota RAV4, 6,600 bucks per Mazda CX5 and over $7,000 per Hyundai TUCSON by 2027. Minister, can you guarantee that there'll be no reduction in availability of these top-selling cars for Australians? (Time expired) 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator McKenzie. We are aware that there are some particular stakeholders who don't support what we're doing because they like things as they currently stand. But, as I say, the NRMA are supporting what we're doing. The RACQ are supporting what we're doing. The RAC WA is supporting what we're doing. And Senator Sharma is supporting what we're doing. So thank you, Senator Sharma, for your support. I would inform Senator McKenzie and all of her National Party colleagues who want to go on about ending weekends that there's another country not too far from here that is a little bit similar to Australia which likes its utes and pick-up trucks and likes driving long distances. It's called the United States of America. Do you know what? They've had fuel efficiency standards in place for 50 years. The last time I watched a movie set in America, there was a pick-up truck in that movie, because there are lots of pick-up trucks in America, despite their having fuel efficiency standards. That is exactly what will happen here at the same time as providing cost-of-living relief to Australians by reducing petrol prices. Why do you want regional Australians to keep paying more for their petrol rather than having what we are proposing now? Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 55 14:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Minister Watt. We are in a black deaths in custody crisis, with 558 deaths since the 19991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Since coming into government, the Albanese government has implemented just one recommendation from the royal commission: a live body-bag count of our people coming out of prisons. Shame! That's one recommendation in two years. Minister, my question is: what's the next recommendation this government is going to implement? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for this question about a very important topic. You would be aware, Senator Thorpe, because I think you've asked similar questions about this before, that the Albanese government has been taking action in the time that we have been in government on these issues and on the issue of First Nations justice needs more generally. More than 30 years on from the royal commission, deaths in custody continue to have a devastating impact on First Nations families and communities. While states and territories hold most of the levers, the Albanese government is playing a leadership role in tackling this issue. We know— Senator Thorpe 280304 President, I raise a point of order on relevance. My question was: what's the next recommendation this government is going to implement? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, there was not a long preamble but there was a reference to black deaths in custody and recommendations which the minister is also entitled to go. But I will listen carefully and, if he doesn't fully address your question, I will draw him to the question. Senator WATT 245759 The Albanese government recognises that there is unfinished business when it comes to implementing the recommendations of the royal commission more than 30 years on from when it handed down its report. We know that the key to addressing what is a national shame, the rate of deaths in custody amongst First Nations people, and reducing that rate is reducing the rate at which First Nations people enter the criminal justice system in the first place. That's why we are investing in up to 30 community led justice reinvestment initiatives across Australia— Senator Thorpe 280304 President, I raise a point of order on relevance. My question was: what is the next recommendation you're going to implement? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, the minister is being relevant to your question. Senator WATT 245759 As we are continuing work on those recommendations from the royal commission, we are taking other actions as well in the First Nations justice space, like investing in up to 30 community led justice reinvestment initiatives across Australia and establishing an independent national justice reinvestment unit, as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Attorney-General has also announced nine communities that were successful in the first round of justice reinvestment grants. Senator Thorpe, as I'm sure you are aware, they were in Cowra in New South Wales, Maningrida, Groote Eylandt— Senator Thorpe 280304 President, I raise a point of order on relevance. We know the history. We know about the tinkering around the edges. My question is: what is the next recommendation, Minister? Tell my people out there. Tell the country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, your question also went to the broader issue of deaths in custody, which the minister is addressing. So the minister is being relevant to your question. The minister has indicated he's finished. So, Senator Thorpe, a first supplementary? 14:49 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria There are a number of recommendations to be implemented at the federal level, Minister, such as national monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations in all jurisdictions, getting Medicare, PBS and NDIS into prisons and raising the age of criminal responsibility. Which of these practical solutions to saving the lives of those in your prisons are you currently pursuing? 14:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Thorpe. You've mentioned that one of the recommendations of the royal commission relates to the age of criminal responsibility, and that is a matter that the Attorney-General is working with the state attorneys-general on at the moment—so with his colleagues. So that is a recommendation where action is ongoing. As I say, in the meantime we are taking other action on other matters, with our $99 million First Nations justice Package. That's delivered unprecedented Commonwealth investment in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and to provide culturally appropriate legal assistance in coronial inquiries and also real-time reporting of deaths in custody, which was introduced in June last year. As I say, the Attorney-General is also working closely with his state and territory colleagues on a proposal to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility, to ensure that the youngest First Nations offenders are supported to turn their lives around rather than set on a cycle of imprisonment and reoffending. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:51 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Most prisons still contain hanging points. This is basically the government facilitating the suicide of those imprisoned under inhumane conditions, which happened again on Christmas Day. When was the last time your government worked with the states and territories to finally remove hanging points? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I would have to take on notice the specific details about work that is going on on that particular recommendation. Obviously, that is something that we would like to see continued progress on. As Senator Thorpe was aware before she left the chamber, we have been working on this matter with the states and territories. Custodial premises—jails—are run by states and territories, and that is something that we need to work with them on. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt— Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Taxation 57 14:52 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to Minister Watt, representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education. We know that hardworking Australians are doing it tough and the cost of living is putting pressure on household budgets. We also know that women face many barriers in reaching economic equality and closing the gender pay gap, both fundamental to reaching a fairer, more prosperous and more resilient economy. How are Labor's tax cuts helping workers in female dominated industries like the early childhood education sector? 14:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Payman, who, along with a number of other people on this side of the chamber, has devoted a lot of her life to supporting early childhood educators. Thank you for the work that you did in that space before coming to this chamber. As we've made clear, the Albanese government's No. 1 priority is addressing inflation and cost-of-living pressures. We know that a lot of people are doing it tough through the global inflation crunch. The rising cost of living is putting increasing pressure on hardworking Australians right now. Senator WATT 245759 It's particularly good that Senator McKenzie and her colleagues have finally decided to back in our plan to provide that cost-of-living relief. So thank you, Senator McKenzie, for agreeing to support our plan, because it has been crystal clear that every taxpayer needs and deserves a meaningful tax cut. Labor's tax cuts are good for middle Australia, good for women, good for helping with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the economy. Labor's tax cuts ensure that every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut and more Australians will get a bigger tax cut. Labor's tax cuts guarantee that every working woman will get a tax cut. Labor's tax cuts mean that on average women will get a tax cut of $1,649 each year. Labor's tax cuts ensure that early childhood educators will be better off than under Scott Morrison's plan, because Labor's tax cuts mean that an early childhood educator earning $46,000 a year will receive an $829 tax cut, far more than they would have received under the coalition's stage 3 tax cuts, and Labor's tax cuts mean that an early childhood teacher earning $69,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $1,404, real cost-of-living relief for the very people that serve our community, educate our children and probably care for a lot of the children of the people who are in this chamber. They will finally be getting the cost-of-living relief that they need, and it took a Labor government to do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a first supplementary? 14:54 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Thank you, Minister, for that response. Evidently Australian families will benefit from Labor's tax cuts. Average-income earners will now be getting more than double than under the previous government's plan. What else is the Australian government doing to provide cost-of-living relief for families? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks again, Senator Payman. As I say, Labor's tax cuts are important because we want to support the aspirations of all Australians. The Labor Party believe that all Australians have aspiration: low-income earners, middle-income earners and high-income earners. We don't see aspiration as just something that is the preserve of the wealthy. Middle Australia and Australians earning low incomes have aspiration as well. Labor want people to earn more, and we want people to keep more of what they earn. These broader and better targeted tax cuts are a key part of our economic plan, which of course includes delivering real cost-of-living relief to Australian families through our cheaper childcare reforms. Senator Payman, I don't know about you but, over the last 24 hours, I've seen what is the most humiliating backdown I have ever seen from the coalition in the time they've been in opposition, because, of course, now they say that they support Labor's tax cuts for middle Australia. But, when speculation first started about this, first out of the blocks as usual was Sussan Ley. Ms Ley was out there saying that they would fight this legislation in the parliament— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a second supplementary? 14:56 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia We know that having the best possible teachers and educators can transform a child's life. Why it is important that every childhood worker gets a tax cut under Labor's plan? 14:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Payman, I'm sure you'd agree that it's crystal clear that every early childhood worker deserves a tax cut, but only Labor stands up for these workers, putting more in their pockets during a cost-of-living crisis. As I say, we've seen all sorts of statements from the Liberals and the Nationals over the last couple of weeks. Here are just a few of them. Over the last couple of weeks, we've seen coalition members of parliament describe Labor's tax cut for all Australians as 'an egregious error', 'a betrayal', 'treachery', 'trickery', 'absolutely shameful', 'class warfare', 'a war on aspiration', 'a war on hardworking Australians', 'a lifetime tax on aspiration' and 'Marxist economics'. Yet, despite hating it that much, they're now going to vote for it. In fact, Mr Dutton couldn't allow the sittings to go for even one minute before he was doing a press conference yesterday in a humiliating backdown saying that he was going to back it. We know it's not the first time that the Liberals have voted for an egregious error; they did put Scott Morrison into The Lodge. We know it's not the first time they've voted for betrayal, treachery and trickery Just have a look at Senator McGrath over there in Nemesis the other night—and now Marxist economics, as well. Ukraine 58 14:57 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Wong. Thirty thousand Ukrainians are killed or wounded every month in the counteroffensive against the Russian invasion. The wounded are generally driven to the hospital, often in the back of an ordinary car or truck—a delay of hours which medical experts say significantly increases the chances of death or permanent disability. That's why the Ukrainian government needs helicopters for aeromedical evacuation and has asked Australia to donate the Taipans which we've retired. The narrative of the Albanese government that the Taipan fleet is beyond repair was demonstrated to be inaccurate by photos published last week which show the majority of the fleet in hangars in Townsville, largely intact and subsequently confirmed as being airworthy. Minister, why is the government so intent on digging a hole and burying these airworthy helicopters, rather than helping to save Ukrainian lives? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I respect Senator Fawcett's involvement and engagement during the time in which he served the nation and also his service on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee. I know with what great sincerity he means that question. He would know that we have had bipartisan support for Ukraine since Russia's illegal and immoral invasion. He would know that in opposition the Labor Party supported the then government's position on Ukraine and that in government we have continued to provide support to Ukraine, including the training of personnel. I think I've said in this chamber that possibly one of the most moving visits I have made has been to the location in the United Kingdom where Ukrainian troops are being trained by Australians and by British and other defence forces. You meet people who were postal workers and farmers and clerks, who are prepared to die for their country. So we share his concern about this. I'm advised in relation to the Taipans that the Taipan has been managed as a project of concern by the Department of Defence since 2011. The senator would know of the tragic crash which saw the loss of Australian lives in July and the fact that the government announced in September 2023 that the MRH-90 would not return to flying operations. I'm advised that Defence received a request from the ambassador of Ukraine and that, by this date, the helicopters had already been subject to extensive disassembly. This decision has been communicated to the ambassador. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Minister, I and the Ukrainian government appreciate the support of both sides of the chamber. But the reality is Ukraine first expressed an interest in using the Taipans—for casualty evacuation—during a meeting that I held with them at the NATO conference in October last year, and I made sure your government was advised of that interest before I even left Copenhagen to return to Australia. Minister, why didn't the Albanese government even bother to pick up the phone to consult the Ukrainians before deciding on a plan to just dig a hole and bury the helicopters? (Time expired) 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I understand it, on all occasions in relation to these matters the government has acted on the basis of advice from Defence. The advice I have is that the advice from Defence was clear that this was not the right platform for Ukraine, and Defence and the government made decisions on that basis. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett, second supplementary? 15:01 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Minister, I think the Ukrainians are well placed to decide what platform will keep their soldiers alive. And, Minister, now that the government has a formal request from Ukraine and it has been established that a number of the helicopters remain airworthy in Townsville, will the Albanese government reverse its decision and denote the aircraft, even in their current state, to allow Ukraine to work with its NATO partners, who continue to safely operate the same type of helicopter, to establish an aeromedical capability to save the lives of their people? 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia In relation to this issue, we will continue to take advice from Defence about the best way forward in relation to this platform. But, also, I would make the broader point that the government continues to keep under review the nature and breadth of the assistance to Ukraine. Before I ask that further questions be placed on notice, I wonder if the Senate would indulge me. I'm pleased to inform the Senate that present in the gallery today are a number of journalists from across South-East Asia who are visiting Australia ahead of the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit in March, and I take the opportunity to welcome them to the Senate on behalf of the government and, I'm sure, by extension, all of those in the chamber. Selamat datang. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! Senator WONG 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 59 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 59 15:03 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today. Obviously, I want to come to this issue of the Taipan helicopters. The minister has correctly advised that the government is responding in accordance with the briefs provided by Defence. But I would offer the evidence that appeared last week, with the photographs of helicopters largely intact in hangars at Townsville, and the subsequent confirmation that, while they are not flyable at the moment because of the removal of some parts, they are largely intact and they are still airworthy. It is common practice during Defence servicing of aircraft, including helicopters, for parts to be removed and then reinstalled. In fact, the disposal plan that Defence has talked about goes to the issue of the removal of parts for sale. I know from my experience dealing with the airworthiness system in Defence that, for another nation to buy those parts, they will need to be assured that they have been removed by qualified technicians in accordance with approved processes, which means that the aircraft are still airworthy and, just like at the end of a servicing period, parts can be replaced. Now, Minister Conroy has made the comment that it would be beyond a reasonable expectation that Australia should put these aircraft back together. I disagree with that, but, even if you accepted that, the request from the Ukrainian government makes it clear that they would work with their NATO allies, including Germany and France, who take a lead in the NATO or European defence contact group for Ukraine, and they are two of the founders of the NATO helicopters industry group, which produces the helicopters and operates them on behalf of NATO countries. They are partners in Airbus, who have people in Europe who are supporting the same type of helicopter, and those helicopters are (a) operating safely and (b), as we see even through people like New Zealand, getting far higher rates of serviceability than the Australian Army, for whatever reason, managed to get here. For the Defence Force here to say that they don't think this is a suitable platform for Ukraine, who are showing themselves remarkably adept at taking on a range of platforms, from fast jets to precision guided weapons to unmanned seaborne systems that are having great effect against Russian forces—I think it's the height of arrogance to say that we don't think that they are up to handling these helicopters when clearly other nations have been able to actually operate them more effectively than we have. They're operating safely, and the Ukrainians have done their homework and indicated in their formal request that they believe they can work with their European partners to operate these aircraft in an aeromedical, casualty evacuation role, which has been proven ever since the Vietnam War to be a key factor in saving lives. It is a real issue for the Ukrainians. Some hospitals—for example, a hospital in Dnipro—are doing between 50 and 100 operations a day. This hospital alone has performed more than 3,000 amputations, committing soldiers to a life of disability, whereas the medical science shows that early intervention, getting people to medical facilities and surgical support early not only saves lives but, importantly, prevents some of the disability outcomes that result, in particular, from the blast injuries that we are seeing in Ukraine. If Defence don't believe that they have the money, the manpower or the time to get the aircraft, which are in Townsville, largely intact, back into a flying state given they are already airworthy, the option is to just donate the airframes as they are to the Ukrainians, who can then work with their European partners to put the tail rotor gearboxes and other parts which are being apparently sold to NHIndustries, who are the people who actually work in Europe. They would have the airframes, the parts and the workforce to work with the Ukrainian government to make these aircraft available. So there is nothing for the Australian government or the Australian Defence Force to fear in terms of cost implications of donating the airframes, because the Ukrainians have indicated they will work with other partners to get them airworthy. I am bemused—in fact, I am alarmed—by the attitude that has been taken, which appears to be a mindless adherence to a decision that was taken some months ago. Despite the new information in the request from Ukraine that they consider their position to be that they can operate them safely and effectively with the support of their allies—despite the fact that it will save lives—it appears that organisations here are perhaps more concerned about saving face than they are about saving lives. That is not the Australia I know. That is not the Australia that has put its shoulder to the wheel many times to support like-minded nations—particularly here, where we're seeing such a great loss of life and injury to their population as they fight against totalitarian regimes in order to protect the democracy that we share and want to preserve. 15:10 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I rise to make my contribution on this take-note motion, in relation to the wonderful position that the Albanese Labor government has made in relation to the tax cuts. I'm very excited for Australians to be able to see the benefits that will flow on to them and their families. Our plan means that every Australian worker will actually receive a tax cut this year. Every Australian taxpayer that pays tax will receive a tax cut this year. These cuts are designed to provide bigger tax cuts for people in Australia to help with their cost of living while making our tax system fairer. It's a plan for tax relief, and it's a plan for tax reform. Our plan is good for Australians. It's good for women. We heard the statistics earlier, and I'll go through them if I've got enough time at the end. They're good for helping out with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the economy. Labor's tax cuts will make a real difference to 13.6 million taxpayers, who will benefit by receiving a tax cut on 1 July this year. That is 2.9 million more than would have benefited from Mr Scott Morrison's plan from five years ago. It means that 11.5 million taxpayers—that's 84 per cent of taxpayers—will receive a bigger tax cut than they would have had we not made some adjustments to the tax. It means that 5.8 million women—that's 90 per cent, and I think in her contribution and her answer Senator Gallagher talked about 90 per cent of women taxpayers—will now receive a bigger tax cut. We're talking about nurses, teachers, truckies, factory workers and shop workers. They are the most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut. Parents, particularly women, with young children will be meaningfully supported to return to work under the government's changes through increases to their take-home pay. Under the proposed changes, taxpayers earning less than $45,000 per annum will now receive a tax cut. This will significantly boost the take-home pay of Australians on modest incomes and people working part-time. The advice from Treasury has been very clear that our tax cuts will not add to inflationary pressures, because they are broadly revenue neutral. The Albanese Labor government is introducing these changes because it recognises the economic realities of right now in 2024. Australians are under pressure right now, and they deserve a tax plan that responds to the challenges that they are facing. When the coalition's planned stage 3 was legislated five years ago, the world was a very different place before a once-in-100-year pandemic, persistent inflation, higher interest rates, two conflicts and global uncertainty put Australians under more sustained cost-of-living pressure. When the circumstances change, changing policy is actually the responsible thing to do. And we are providing that meaningful cost-of-living relief in a responsible way that doesn't add to inflationary pressures, while laying down the foundations for a stronger and more resilient economy. My duty electorate of Braddon in the north-west coast of Tasmania will significantly benefit. The workers in that electorate will significantly benefit: 45,000 workers in Braddon alone will be beneficiaries of this tax cut. I spoke to a number of people last week after we had made the position very clear. Some of them were Liberal voters and some were other voters. Some of them were obviously Labor voters. I went to an event on Saturday night where there were over 5,000 people, and I had people talking to me, coming up to me, saying what a great position that was and what a really good thing it was to do in this current climate. I am very proud to stand here as a member of the Anthony Albanese Labor government that has provided this relief for workers in our country. 15:15 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I, too, rise to take note of answers. I'm going to focus on the economic issues. Before I do, I congratulate Senator Fawcett both on his question and on the very constructive way in which he approaches these issues. It strikes me as something that needs to be reconsidered by this government, and I will lend any support I can give to Senator Fawcett in that regard. His knowledge and background in the military is significantly more than mine, and he makes a very sensible argument. On the economic issues: we again saw the government twisting in the wind, flailing about, attacking the opposition because it doesn't like its own record in the tax space. That's because the Australian people know that Labor governments over decades, over my life, have form in this area of not being able to be trusted on tax cuts. You don't have to go back very far, just to the previous Labor government. Everyone remembers the carbon tax mistruth—we'd better not say that other word because everyone gets upset; don't worry, I'm not going to channel a thesaurus like Senator McGrath! Everyone remembers the carbon tax mistruth from the Gillard era. Fewer people probably remember the 2014 tax-cut rollbacks that were also a broken promise. We stretch back a little further, don't we, Senator Colbeck—I'm sure Senator Colbeck remembers the 'l-a-w, law' tax cuts. Senator Colbeck 00AOL I wasn't here then! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 I know you weren't here. I wasn't here either; I was in high school, or maybe just out of high school. But I remember them, and I think a lot of Australians who were taxpayers at that time remember them. Another Labor government, another broken promise on tax policy. Labor governments have form in this area. This Labor government has form in this area. What about the promise that there would be no changes to superannuation taxation arrangements? Yet, lo and behold, in the next few months we're about to see an increase in superannuation taxation, one that's going to hit that part of the economy that's very close to my heart, as I've talked about in this place—the SMSF sector, particularly those related to small business and farmers who have happened to put some tangible assets into their self-managed super funds, like farming property. As a result of natural price inflation, that property will now potentially be worth more than $3 million and they're going to face a tax bill. In order to pay that tax bill, those farming families will have to either come up with cash or sell assets. So there we have it: we've got a Labor government that breaks promises. We've got a Labor government that, to use the Australian vernacular, tells porky pies. I love the old expression 'the furphy'—the tall tale told around the water carriers back in World War I. This is a Labor government that tells big furphies. It tells the Australian people things that simply are not the truth. The Prime Minister says things like, 'My word is my bond.' You can't say anything more direct than that. And then the Australian people see those mistruths come forward. They see the twisting of the words and Labor twisting in the wind as they try and keep a straight face while they remain true to their commitments to the Australian people. Labor governments have form. We've talked about Keating, former Prime Minister Gillard, former Prime Minister Rudd and now we're talking about the Albanese Labor government—governments that repeatedly had form in this tax space. Every aspect of taxation that they supposedly have committed to not altering is now under question. The Australian people will go into the next election with that reality staring them firmly in the face. This is a Labor government that cannot be trusted with the future of the Australian economy. Australian households have seen their costs increase by $8,000 to $25,000 per year. These are costs that the average Australian family simply cannot bear, and this government cannot be trusted to do anything about it. 15:20 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I am pleased to rise today to put on the record some facts about the tax cuts that are underway for more Australians. As Senator Wong said in her response to questions to her today from Senator Hume and as we've just had materialise in that contribution by our fellow senator, this is an opposition that's complaining about a change that they're now actually going to vote for. They're coming grumbling, whingeing and whining in their questions and their commentary about a tax cut for no fewer than 13.6 million Australians. That's 13.6 million Australians who stand to benefit from the decisions of a responsible Labor government led by Anthony Albanese and defended here in this first question today by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, and they are whingeing and whining on the opposite side. Finally, after saying they were never going to agree to the changes that we proposed, finally, under pressure from the Australian people themselves, they've changed their position in the last 24 hours and they accept that maybe they shouldn't stand between 13.6 million Australians and a tax cut they desperately, desperately need. You've got a couple of choices when you're a government. You can either stand deaf to the Australian people, wring your hands, say, 'Oh, I'm so sorry it's a bit hard for you at the moment,' and do nothing, which is what we saw under the opposition when they were in government, or you can actually listen to the Australian people, actually care, invest energy and emotion in responding to the concerns that they raise and then carefully design a response to the pain and suffering that they're articulating to you. We did it when we put in Medicare 40 years ago. We've been talking about the anniversary of 40 years of Medicare. People should know that the major cause of bankruptcy before Labor instituted Medicare was medical debt. We heard, we designed policy and we responded, and that is what's going on with the tax cuts for 13.6 million Australians. I want to speak to the duty seats that I represent across the great state of New South Wales. If you're in Oberon, Orange or Bathurst in the seat of Calare, a beautiful part of the state of New South Wales, there will be 71,000 local people who will be getting an average tax cut of $1,532. That's 85 per cent of the people of Calare under Labor's tax plan where you keep more of the money that you earn. That's what we will be supporting, and, belatedly, after a huge whinge and a continuing dummy spit, the opposition now say that they're on board. If you're from Farrer and live in Albury or Coleambally, 76,000 taxpayers are going to get the benefit of Labor's policy which is responding to the pressure that Australians are telling us that they're under from cost of living. The average tax cut for 66,000 people in the seat of Farrer is $1,359. In Hume, if you're in Narellan or Picton or anywhere around that seat, 79,000 taxpayers will benefit to the tune of $1,585. That's 68,000 taxpayers who are going to get a bigger cut than they would have under the Liberal-National coalition's plan. In Lyne, if you live in Manning Point or Kew, 57,000 of your fellow citizens will get a $1,325 cut. If you're in the seat Riverina around Wagga Wagga, 67,000 of the people that you live around in that community will get an average tax cut of $1,425. In Parkes, Coonabarabran, Broken Hill, Dubbo and Wilcannia, 62,000 people will receive a tax cut, with an average of $1,465 going back to individual taxpayers. These are the facts. They're a Labor investment in the people of Australia—allowing you to keep more of your tax for your own benefit and for the benefit of your local economy. 15:25 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania While taking note today of all answers to questions from the opposition to the government, I intend to focus on two of those questions. Firstly, I want to offer my support for the question and the taking note by Senator Fawcett in relation to the potential donation of helicopters to Ukraine. If there were a subject matter expert on any particular topic, Senator Fawcett would be that in respect of this matter in this parliament. During his service in the Defence Force, Senator Fawcett became the officer responsible for flight test programs for all Australian Defence Force aircraft. If anyone knows about this, Senator Fawcett does. The government should challenge the advice they received from Defence, reverse the decision and make this donation. It's not that complicated. Congratulations to Senator Fawcett for doing the research. The government should take advantage of the knowledge that he brings to this place. It is unique knowledge and skills, and they should take heed of it. The other point I would like to raise as part of my taking note response is that watching a government senator stand and try to justify their complete breach of faith with the Australian people is very disturbing. The fact is that the Prime Minister stood before the Australian people at the National Press Club before the election and said, 'I'm going to do after the election exactly what I am saying now.' That he went on television and said in relation to these tax cuts, 'My word is my bond,' demonstrates that this government no longer has any integrity. The Australian people cannot believe a single word that this Prime Minister says or that this government says. When you ask them for an assurance, you can't believe it, because their word means nothing. Senator Urquhart talked about speaking to people in her region of Braddon. I live in the same part of Tasmania. The day after the announcement a constituent said to me, 'They forgot to mention that I got a $1,500 tax cut last year that the government took off me when there were still cost-of-living pressures, and they're now congratulating themselves on breaking a promise.' This is a dishonest government and it can't be believed by the Australian people. Question agreed to. Climate Change: Agriculture 62 15:28 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today. When the World Economic Forum launched their social media campaign in 2018 carrying the slogan, 'You'll own nothing and you'll be happy,' I thought that finally the predatory billionaires who try to run the world had shown their hand. The public could finally see their fate if the World Economic Forum are allowed to succeed. That didn't happen. The media, who have the same owners as the World Economic Forum, persisted with calling the World Economic Forum's evil agenda 'a conspiracy theory'. Even in this place there are only a handful of senators with the courage to call out the agenda for what it is: economic exploitation and social control. Over the break, the World Economic Forum revealed another aspect of their plan and they launched a campaign against laundry. Yes, really—laundry! They said jeans should not be washed more than once a month and most other clothes washed once a week. You will wear dirty clothes and be smelly and happy, apparently. The temptation is to laugh at their desire to control even mundane aspects of our lives, yet the truth is much more frightening than that. The World Economic Forum have now turned their evil agenda to food. The campaign against farming is really a campaign against one of the necessities of life—food. Predatory, parasitic billionaires, owning near urban intensive production facilities, are producing food-like substances for the masses, forcing the public into acceptance of the World Economic Forum's fake global warming scam. These are their own stated motives: control food and control people. Whoever controls the food supply controls the people. Whoever controls the energy can control whole continents. Whoever controls money can control the whole world. The World Economic Forum and the predatory billionaires they represent are currently trying to do all three. The Greens, Labor and the globalist Liberals will, of course, support the World Economic Forum. It is time the Australian parliament stood up for farmers and rural communities and for all Australians. Question agreed to. Gas Industry 62 15:30 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today. I asked the minister about the future gas strategy. I'm hoping that the folks out there are paying attention because this is fact: right now, we are in a climate crisis. I know some people in this place have their cooked theories and their denial that climate change exists. At this end of the chamber, people who respect the science know that it does exist. I come from a state where last week we were in a three-day heatwave of 41 degrees. That will happen again at the end of this week. Every report that comes out of every organisation—not for profit and government—UN agency and international body acknowledges this. These reports in fact say that it is becoming more and more dire. This is very, very clear in those reports that detail we must be moving away from fossil fuels. We must be transitioning to renewable energy. We have to have the plans in place to shut down some of those existing facilities and support workers, more importantly, through that transition. So, as Minister Farrell put it in his response to me, just flipping a switch is not what we're talking about. We asked about a transition plan. We asked for a transition. There is a big difference between existing coal and gas projects in the country and upgrading and having new projects. Which is that? We are asking the government to answer us. We want an answer about what they are actually going to do. What about the answers they gave to the coalition about keeping the lights on? No-one wants to hear that rhetoric. We want actual answers from the government about what they are going to do. We know that we need to transition in order to have the best opportunity and chance of avoiding some of the catastrophic impacts of rising sea levels, storms, droughts, floods and fires happening all over this country. If you have conversations in your own electorates with your own constituents about how that is affecting them in Far North Queensland or in my home state of WA, you will know—and I hope that you know and are paying attention—the impact it is having on people's lives. We cannot sit here. We know there has not been any action for the past decade—action that is desperately needed by our communities. We also know what state capture looks like. For those folks out there watching in digital land today, state capture is about accepting millions of dollars from the fossil fuel companies, having our systems captured in this country. There is proven evidence of that. I just happen to have some of those figures on hand. In the 2022-23 financial year, the Mineral Council of Australia donated $213,000 to the major parties. Santos donated $169,000, Tamboran donated $28,000 and Woodside donated $97,500. The minister himself showed in his answer how this government is linked to the gas cartels. 'The gas industry are completely correct,' he responded to me. There was no critical thinking and no care about how commercial interests are at play here. Of course the gas industry wants to continue. They want to continue to make billions and billions of dollars and play a role well into our future facilitated by the Minister for Resources, who had a junket over to Japan and might as well get a job at Brumbies as a baker, baking in the next 26 years of gas coming out of this country for trade and not for domestic use. The role of this government is not listening to the science, continuing to entertain the gas companies instead of actually listening and making a plan for some tangible outcomes for our communities. They're not looking forward on that. I thought there was a policy announcement coming when Minister Farrell said, 'Right now.' I am waiting with bated breath to see APPEA's new media release, Minister Farrell, because it will have your policy announcement there. That's exactly what they will do. Senator COX 296215 Or the chamber of minerals, resources and energy will have the media release ready to go for this government. Question agreed to. PETITIONS 63 PETITIONS Middle East 63 NOTICES 64 NOTICES Presentation 64 Postponement 64 CONDOLENCES 64 CONDOLENCES Lightfoot, Mr Philip Ross 64 15:37 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 11 January 2024 of Philip Ross Lightfoot, a senator for the state of Western Australia from 1997 to 2008. 15:38 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 11 January 2024, of Philip Ross Lightfoot, a former senator for Western Australia, and places on record its gratitude for his service to the parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I rise on behalf of the government to acknowledge the passing on 11 January of former senator Philip Ross, better known as Ross, Lightfoot. Senator Lightfoot served as a senator for Western Australia from 19 May 1997 until 30 June 2008, being appointed following the death of Senator John Panizza. While he represented Western Australia in this place, Senator Lightfoot was in fact born across the border, in Port Lincoln, South Australia, on 11 August 1936 to John Lightfoot and Thelma Forrest. Senator Lightfoot's life before entering the Senate was a varied one. He undertook his schooling at the Port Lincoln primary school and high school before leaving at age 13 and eventually undertaking further study at both the Adelaide and the Kalgoorlie mining school. At age 15, in 1951, he joined the Citizen Military Forces, serving as a rifleman for several years, and later found work in the South Australian Mounted Police. During this time he served in the honour guard for Queen Elizabeth during two state visits, events which he later said in his valedictory speech in this place were foundational in developing his lifelong and passionate monarchist views. Senator Lightfoot later went on to manage and own properties across Western Australia. He also had extensive involvement in the mining industry as the founding chairman of Southern Goldfields Mining Co and as a director of Eureka Minerals. From 1986 to 1997 Senator Lightfoot served in both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council of Western Australia. Following his appointment as a senator in 1997, Senator Lightfoot served on a large number of parliamentary committees, including the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Finance and Public Administration Committee. He also served as a temporary chair of committees throughout much of his tenure in the Senate. Outside of the Senate, Senator Lightfoot was passionate about a number of issues, including being a patron of the Extremely Disabled War Veterans Association of Australia, and was appointed a Knight of Grace of Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. Senator Lightfoot was a strong believer in the proposal that Western Australia should secede from the Commonwealth, declaring this during his time in the parliament of Western Australia. However, by the time he left this place in 2008 he did express a softening in his views and, despite this, he remained an ardent supporter of his home state throughout his long career. Senator Lightfoot dedicated a significant amount of his adult life to representing the people of Western Australia in both the state and federal parliaments, and today we recognise that service. On behalf of the government I extend my condolences to his family, including his wife, Anne, and his children. Vale Senator Philip Ross Lightfoot. 15:42 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise on behalf of the opposition to join with the government and support the motion moved by Senator Farrell in honouring and speaking to the life of Philip Ross Lightfoot. Philip Ross Lightfoot, known to all as Ross, was, as Senator Farrell said, born in 1936 to Thelma and John Lightfoot in Port Lincoln, South Australia. He was educated at Port Lincoln primary school and high school before attending the Adelaide and then Kalgoorlie School of Mines. But Ross left the school at the age of 13 and held a number of jobs, including in an abattoir, until he was 16, when he made the decision to up his age to 19 and join the Army under the National Service Act that had been brought in after World War II. He served in the 43rd/48th Infantry Battalion from 1953 to 1956. Throughout his life, Ross would return to the land, reminding others that he was a country bloke after all. Ross took to being a plasterer and a jackaroo following his Army service for a short time, and in that era joined the local Liberal Party branch in Port Lincoln. Ross then took on service with the South Australian Mounted Police, which he would later describe as the most exhilarating time—in particular, as Senator Farrell mentioned, and one of the most memorable events in Ross's life, being selected as part of the late Queen Elizabeth II's personal escort upon her visit to South Australia in 1961. Leaving the Mounted Police in 1963, Ross Lightfoot would hold a number of jobs over the decades that brought him back to farming as well as into mining, where his interest in politics deepened and took him firmly into Western Australia. In Western Australia he served in the state parliament, firstly as a member of the Legislative Assembly for the seat of Murchison-Eyre, from 1986 until 1989, until the seat was abolished under redistribution. Such a fate did not dissuade Ross from politics, as he went on to contest the election and be re-elected to the Western Australian parliament as a member of the Legislative Council for the North Metropolitan Region in 1993. This turn in the Legislative Council would be short, as Ross sought and gained endorsement to fill a vacancy in the Australian Senate following the unfortunate passing of Western Australian senator John Panizza in 1997. It is notable that Ross Lightfoot stands among a very small number of Australians to have served in not just one or two but, in fact, three different parliamentary chambers across our Federation. Ross reflected in his first speech that he shared many of the interests and aspirations of his predecessor, former senator Panizza, in farming and mining. It was a first speech emboldened with Ross Lightfoot's strong beliefs and fierce opinions on what he believed was in the best interests of Western Australia and ultimately Australia. In what would have been merely minutes into his first speech, Ross stated, to the surprise of some, that he was in fact a republican. Yet he also stated that, if such a debate on whether Australia became a republic or remained within the Commonwealth threatened to divide the fabric of what makes Australia such a successful democracy, he would advocate for the monarchy. Direct and forthright, Ross Lightfoot certainly was. But he was also a classical farmer gentleman in many ways. His views may have been unfashionable, his approach direct, but, based on all feedback, he was unfailingly polite to staff and those who worked with or for him. During his 11 years in the Senate, Ross made extensive contributions serving on numerous committees, as we've heard, and as a patron of organisations, including the Disabled War Veterans Association of Australia. Ross Lightfoot also made the tabloids from time to time for his strong views and sometimes controversial stances or actions. A notable headline occurred when he had what some would call a tussle with two Greens senators following US President George W Bush's address to a joint sitting of the parliament. Perhaps it was the old policeman background in him, but Ross Lightfoot was under the impression that there was something sinister afoot, and, therefore, he intercepted an unplanned audience between the Greens senators and President George W Bush, which then apparently broke into a bit of a bigger biff or tussle, as reported by the newspapers of the time. This tussle between members of parliament, later called 'the charge of the Lightfoot brigade', supposedly meant that the President and then Prime Minister Howard avoided involvement with the Greens and their desire to make whatever point it was thanks to Ross Lightfoot's actions. Following this time, as Ross went to seek re-election to the Senate he found himself in a fierce contest. Though never usually one to back away from a contest, ultimately, with a certain Mathias Cormann challenging him, Ross made the final decision not to re-contest at the 2007 election. I served briefly with Ross, and I particularly recall in this place the presence he brought to his time in the chair as an acting temporary chair on many occasions. He would fill that role with aplomb and, indeed, had a substance and presence in presiding over Senate procedure, reflecting somebody who had provided such long service not just in the Senate but across multiple parliamentary chambers. In his valedictory to the Senate, Ross reflected what I believe, I'm sure, is the great admiration we all have for Australia's very special democratic system—that Australians of all backgrounds can become members of parliament: I will close by saying that my first job in my life was in an abattoir and that … my last job will be as a senator … It is testimony not so much to the tenacity that I showed in climbing up that sometimes steep cliff to get to this heady and elevated plateau but more to the system in Australia that allows people like me, from an extremely modest background, to end up in an august and wonderful chamber such as this, amongst wonderful people and great Australians. I have been fortunate enough to do that. It was a customary flourish, a sign of his gratitude for the opportunities provided to him and the work he was able to undertake in pursuing his beliefs and acting on behalf of his constituents. On behalf of the opposition in the Australian Senate, to Ross's wife, Annie; his children Mark, Belle, Jo, Sam and Alix; and grandchildren: we extend our sincere condolences. 15:50 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak in condolence of former Western Australian senator Phillip Ross Lightfoot. The West Australian once noted that, if Ross Lightfoot didn't exist, his opponents would be forced to invent him, and I think, 'How true that was.' I think it is safe to characterise Ross as a genuine WA rogue with a big heart; however, he had very strong and often controversial opinions that few in the Senate today would find appropriate. But he did have longstanding passions for the monarchy, for the Federation and, very vocally, for Western Australian secession. In fact, I think it's still a sentiment that is held by more than a few Western Australians. He once said of Western Australia that we should treat the Nullarbor as a big dry moat to promote secession. He was a country boy at heart, and he'd always say that he was far more comfortable in Moleskines and his R.M. Williams than a pinstripe suit. But, that said, he did become a very successful pastoralist and farmer and, as we have heard from Senator Birmingham, a longstanding three-time politician. He was born in South Australia in 1936, and in his life he did turn himself to many endeavours, including, in the 1950s, international service as a plasterer, a jackaroo and a mounted police officer when he served as part of the late Queen's escort on her royal visit. After 1963, he began a long involvement with the mining industry and moved to Western Australia in 1968. It was during the first nickel boom. His story of working as a prospector is what outback legends are made of. His innovative work of pegging the entire town of Coolgardie after learning that most of the land in the Goldfields had already been pegged certainly led to his future financial fortune. In his own words he said: 'They like to put me in amongst the silvertails, but they can't, because I'm a peasant. That's what I am. I'm peasant who has had his share of luck.' Ross had the almost unique distinction of serving Western Australia in three separate jurisdictions: the WA Legislative Assembly, the Legislative Council and also the Senate. So he's one of the few of us who have actually been able to deliver three separate first speeches and valedictory speeches. Having joined the Liberal Party in 1957, he contested what was then to be the very safe ALP seat of Kalgoorlie in 1983, and his intent was to divert some of the Labor resources from the marginal seat of Murchison-Eyre. It was to be the only time he lost an election. In 1984 Ross was preselected to contest Murchison-Eyre in succession to the late Peter Coyne, who had held it since 1971. It was the largest district in area, with the smallest enrolment—around 3,000—and it included Meekatharra, Mount Magnet and Leonora. In 1986 he won the seat, polling 1,411 votes, with 51.7 per cent of the vote. In 1991 he relocated to Perth because he had a farm in Bindoon, and it was then that he was preselected for the fourth position on the Liberal ticket and he was elected for the North Metropolitan Region in the Legislative Council. Then, sadly for many of us who remember, the late Senator John Panizza passed away in January 1997, somewhat unexpectedly, and Ross, still an MLC, was one of the many Liberal applicants for the Senate vacancy, which expired in 2002. In May 1997 he was chosen to represent Western Australia in replacement of Senator John Panizza. However, as he describes it, with Western Australia still at the forefront of his focus, he delayed his swearing in to the Senate to stay in Western Australia as an MLC to ensure the Court government's IR reforms were passed. As the history of Western Australia shows, thank goodness he did that. At the time, he said, 'My duty is to Western Australia, whether as a senator or in the microsenate of the legislative council.' As Senator Birmingham has so well characterised, during his 11 years in the Senate he formed a strong interest in defence, foreign affairs and federalism, and he also championed the constitutional monarchy. He also served on a number of important committees, including as Acting Deputy President of the Senate. Ross was always a fierce advocate for Western Australia. In his inaugural speech in the WA legislative assembly, he said: So my goal as I see it, Mr Speaker, my charge and responsibility to the people of Murchison-Eyre and my fellow goldfielders, is to act as a watchdog, a guardian against the further atrophying and shrinking of Western Australian rights by insidious and often covert or duplicitous legislation from Canberra, like amendments to the taxation Act, the heritage Act, national land rights, and the most vexatious of all, the misnomer called the Bill of Rights. It sounds like a week in the Senate today, in fact. He went on to say: I feel that I am further charged with attempting to hold the scales more evenly, to regain from Canberra some of the decision-making and equity that most of my constituents agree is rightfully within the realms of Western Australia, the largest State of this federated nation. But, by the end of his time in the Senate in 2008, Ross acknowledged the softening of his views as a secessionist. In his valedictory speech, he said: The other aspect of that which I brought to this chamber was that I stilled burned, albeit not with the same fierce passion that I once held, for the secession of Western Australia. It seemed to me to be something that was not quite fair, not quite reasonable and not quite equitable to have a big state like Western Australia, a third of this nation, producing a great deal of the national export income and to have that income mainly flow to Canberra and seem not to flow back to Western Australia … Part of that change was his recognition of the evolution of the Senate itself. Ross's ambition had always been to serve Western Australia exclusively, demonstrated by his 18 years of parliamentary service, but, as he acknowledged in his valedictory speech, he served his country as well. On my own behalf—and on the behalf, I'm sure, of other Western Australian Liberal Party members—I extend my sincere condolences to his family. I remember his remarkable service to Western Australia and to his country. Vale, Ross Lightfoot. 15:57 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I too would like to make a contribution on the condolence motion for former senator Ross Lightfoot. I think I'm one of the few who remain in the place that served with Ross. He certainly could be described in today's parlance as a colourful character. As has been indicated by some of my colleagues, he held some views that would certainly not hold sway today. He wasn't afraid of a stoush, and he was certainly forthright in putting those views, but he did have an enormous respect for this place. He did value enormously his role as an elected representative from Western Australia, as difficult as it might have been sometimes to reconcile the views that he brought to this place in respect of some of his perspectives. He seemed to find ways to get into a stoush, the interaction between former senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle when President Bush was here being a notable one, and I do recall him appearing on the front page of the Australian holding an AK-47 at one point in time. I think in today's terms, particularly the last photograph, there are not too many that would survive politically having that photograph of them published these days. Ross, though, was prepared to hold his ground before making a decision at the end of the day to retire. He was great company. He and his wife, Anne, became great friends with a number of us. When he suffered from dementia later in life, that became a very difficult time for Anne, who is just an absolutely delightful person and a great friend. I would like to acknowledge the service of former senator Ross Lightfoot, but pass to Anne and Ross's relatives my condolences on his passing. I think it's clear we're not likely to see the likes of someone like Ross in this place again, But, as he was colourful, the place is more colourful for his part in being here and serving in the three parliaments, which is quite a unique record, he served in both here and in Western Australia. Condolences to Anne and Ross's family. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Australia's Disaster Resilience Select Committee 68 Reporting Date 68 16:01 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience be extended to Thursday, 8 August 2024. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 68 DOCUMENTS Minister for the Environment and Water 68 Order for the Production of Documents 68 16:02 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Davey, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Monday, 26 February 2024, all briefing notes, media briefing notes, file notes, emails and written communications relating to visits by the Minister for the Environment and Water to Murray-Darling Basin communities. Question agreed to. Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister for the Environment and Water, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Murray Darling Basin Authority, Commonwealth Environmental Water Office 68 Order for the Production of Documents 68 16:03 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Davey, 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 Monday, 26 February 2024, all briefing notes, media briefing notes, file notes, emails and written communications during the period 6 September 2023 to 4 December 2023, relating to compliance with orders for the production of documents no. 318 (Murray-Darling Basin Plan) and no. 319 (Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations Funding Agreement) between or generated by: (a) the office of the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water; (b) the office of the Minister for the Environment and Water; (c) the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; (d) the Murray Darling Basin Authority; and (e) the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office. Question agreed to. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Department of the Treasury, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, GHD, ACIL Allen 68 Order for the Production of Documents 68 16:03 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Before asking that it be taken as a formal motion, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 458 relating to an order for the production of documents as circulated. Leave granted. Senator ASKEW 281558 At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 8 February 2024, the following: (a) any modelling conducted by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts; Treasury; the Department of Industry, Science and Resources; or the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, regarding the impact of the new fuel or vehicle emissions standards; (b) the document titled Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis, by GHD and ACIL Allen (2022); (c) any other report or modelling regarding new fuel or vehicle emission standards implementation authored by ACIL Allen Consulting held by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts; Treasury; the Department of Industry, Science and Resources; or the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; and (d) the document titled Modelling and analysis of a regulated fuel efficiency standard, Stage 1 Report, by ACIL Allen (2023). Question agreed to. BILLS 69 BILLS Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 69

Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 69 16:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator GALLAGHER ING I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 69 16:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 (the Bill) amends the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 (the FFSP Act) to remove certain limiting words from section 32B and section 39B. Section 32B of the FFSP Act confers power on the Commonwealth to make, vary or administer an arrangement or grant, where relevantly specified in the Financial . Framework (Supplementary Powers) Regulations 1997 (FFSP Regulations), in circumstances where 'apart from this subsection, the Commonwealth does not have power to make, vary or administer' the arrangement or grant (paragraph 32B(l)(a)). Section 39B of the FFSP Act contains similar words in relation to the specified activities in respect of a company. The FFSP framework was established in response to the Williams[1] decisions by the High Court. The High Court determined that Commonwealth expenditure will only be valid if: legislation authorises the expenditure (with limited exceptions), and the legislation authorising the expenditure is within a Commonwealth head of legislative power. Section 328 was inserted into the then Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997(currently the FFSP AcfJ to provide legislative authority for existing and future Commonwealth programs. The FFSP framework has supported a broad range of spending via arrangements or grants, including emergency payments during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2020 bushfires and floods. The amendments will put beyond doubt that the FFSP framework operates consistently with how it has been understood to operate,, including in circumstances where another general spending power may be available. The amendments would clarify the operation of the FFSP framework and confirm the validity of government spending programs that rely on section 328 of the FFSP Act, as well as any government involvement in companies in reliance on section 398 of the FFSP Act, in circumstances where other general powers could also be relied on. The Bill also includes validation and savings provisions to regularise past spending and government activities in reliance on sections 32B and 398, in the event that any such past spending or activity may not have been valid because there was an alternative source of legislative authority. The changes in this Bill simply clarify the position to what has always been the common understanding. [1] Williams v Commonwealth (2012) 248 CLR 156 (Williams Nol) and Williams v Commonwealth (2014) 252 CLR 416 (Williams No 2). Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 70 MOTIONS Address by Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea 70 16:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move: That— (a) on Thursday, 8 February 2024, the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 9.30 am till the ringing of the bells, to enable senators to attend an address by the Honourable James Marape MP, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea; and (b) this order only apply following the reporting of a message from the House of Representatives inviting senators to attend a meeting of that House for the purposes of the address. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 70 Reference 70 16:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: 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: Department of Defence—Facilities to support Advanced Growler Phase 6. And I table a statement in relation to the work. Question agreed to. Community Affairs References Committee 70 Reference 70 16:07 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I move: That, noting the issue of excess mortality in Australia has not been adequately investigated, the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 July 2024: (a) Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data showing excess deaths in recent years, with particular reference to: (i) all-cause provisional mortality data reported by the states and territories to the ABS, and (ii) the difference between all-cause provisional mortality data for 2021, 2022 and 2023 and the preceding years of 2015 to 2020 (inclusive); (b) any other identified factors contributing to excess mortality; and (c) any other related matter. 16:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government does not support this motion. The ABS is the definitive authority of mortality statistics and data in Australia and provides regular publications, including the provisional mortality reports published monthly, every second month. Deaths Australia are dated annually and excess mortality reports published reports twice yearly. This data is published online and available to everyone. It is used by researchers, government departments and agencies like the AIHW and reported in reputable publications. In their analysis the ABS has compared the number of deaths which have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic with the number of deaths expected based on historical trends and adjusted for population changes. This includes deaths from all causes and not only those related to COVID-19. While death rates and causes of death are key indicators of the health status of a population, it's important to remember that every death that makes up the total statistic is a personal tragedy, and I acknowledge the tragic impact of these deaths on the families and friends of those who have lost their lives. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Babet, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 30 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. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 35 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 71 BILLS Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024 71

Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024

First Reading 71 16:16 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator THORPE 280304 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 71 16:16 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator THORPE 280304 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill is a simple change, and as laid out in the Explanatory Memorandum, makes only two substantive amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code) removing the following restrictions so-called Australia included in their domestic implementation of the Conventionon the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Convention): 1. the restrictions on commencement of proceedings under Division 268 of Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code, relating to genocide, offences relating to crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against the administration of the justice of the International Criminal Court, to those which have gained the written consent of the Attorney-General, whom they will also be prosecuted in the name of; and 2. that a decision by the Attorney-General to give, or to refuse, a consent under section 268.121 is final and cannot be reviewed or appealed, except in the limited circumstance of judicial review by the High Court under section 75(v) of the Constitution. These changes facilitate truth telling and accountability, without which, there will be no change. Unless governments commit and choose to be held, and hold others accountable, crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, suffering and mass death will happen again, over and over again. The lack of proper adherence to international human rights is not because the goals are unable to be reached or there has not been enough time, it is due to lack of prioritisation of our collective humanity and lack of accountability. This Bill importantly strengthens accountability for breaches of the Convention, upholds the original spirit and intention of the Convention which intended to ensure genocide would never happen again, and improves the proper domestic implementation of the Convention. This Bill seeks to uphold the rule of law, a fundamental feature of the legal system of so-called Australia, being the principle that no person, government official or government is above the law. A critical aspect of the rule of law is reviewing, updating and removing laws to make sure they are fair and reflect current social values and it is clear there is an urgent need to prioritise, promote and protect human rights, international humanitarian law, and our collective and individual humanity. Issues with the operation of the Attorney-General's Fiat The principle behind the restrictions, commonly known as the Attorney-General's fiat, is to safeguard against inappropriate prosecutions as noted by Note Verbal No. 38/2018 of the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations. However, historically this country has a poor record of prosecuting persons for international crimes, or even formally recognising when crimes like genocide have occurred, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. With respect to state recognition of genocide, academic Dr Melanie O'Brien notes that 'states…are generally reluctant to recognise genocide' because it may trigger obligations under the Convention or because of the potential repercussions recognition may have on relations with the perpetrator state. Ellen VanBeukering, an Australian Foreign Policy Fellow, discussed possible reasons for the Australian Government's reluctance to formally recognise genocide in China, and stated the reason for this lack of action may lie closer to home than we realise: Australia's colonial past and its mistreatment of First Peoples could be setting a precedent for the nation's approach to acts of genocide. As noted by Michael (Ghillar) Anderson, and by academics Anna Hood and Monique Cormier, this provision 'effectively provides [the Attorney-General] with a carte blanche to determine whether a prosecution makes it to court' and reference a situation where this has occurred.[ ]The alarming rate of child removals is only possible because the Commonwealth of Australia has blocked the full force of the Conventionby inserting an Attorney-General's fiat.[ ]In addition, the prospect of litigation by First Peoples no doubt ensured that when the Commonwealth Government finally legislated to make genocide a crime in Australia it did not do so retrospectively to avoid accountability. However, this has not prevented other states from recognising genocide, both at home and abroad, for example, Canada has recognised eight situations where genocide has occurred including on 27 October 2022, Canada's House of Commons unanimously passed a motion acknowledging the Indian Residential School System as a genocide, following Pope Francis acknowledging it as a genocide. Indeed, the Attorney-General's fiat itself has functioned as an effective veto power to commencing proceedings under the Convention in the past and functioned as a barrier to justice for victims and survivors of these atrocious crimes. While it is unclear how many times the Attorney-General's fiat has been used to quash proceedings, there are two well known cases for genocide that have been brought. The first attempted to commence a prosecution of Sri Lankan President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the second against Aung San Suu Kyi, the then Minister of the Office of the President and Foreign Minister of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Both times the Attorney-General of the time refused to grant consent, the reasons of which have been critiqued. In the case of Taylor v Attorney-General (Cth) [2019] HCA 30 a slim 4:3 majority dismissed the application on the basis that a private person, cannot bring prosecutions under Division 268. The International Law Association Reporter noted at the time that this "decision dilutes, yet again, Australia's capacity to contribute to a system of international criminal justice in a robust way" and that is likely to be the last time a private citizen will seek to commence a prosecution. As noted by Academics Anna Hood and Monique Cromier in the Melbourne Journal of International Law, in making their decision, the Attorney-General has near unfettered discretion, has no criteria to apply, and there is no requirement to provide reasons. As the operation of section 268 of the Criminal Code does not enliven the jurisdiction of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) reasons for the decision cannot be demanded, nor is it subject to any form of merits review by, for example, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. While the decisions of the Attorney-General can theoretically be held to account through the mechanism of parliamentary question time, a 2008 study by Andrew McGowan found that Australia's question time is less effective at holding the executive to account than the Commonwealth parliaments in Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. It has been pointed out that the low level of accountability that surrounds the Attorney-General's decision-making powers exacerbates the problems that arise from the broad discretion and potential for real or perceived political bias.[ ]Amnesty International, in a 2004 report on the implementation of the Rome Statute, raised concerns that States, including Australia, were including the requirement of consent to prosecute by the Attorney-General, a political official, in their national implementing legislation' and stated explicitly that "such a requirement should be excluded in all implementing legislation". Further, in recognising that genocide was virtually always committed with the complicity of the state, it was the intention of the Conventionthat any person should be able to commence a case against genocide. The high level of control and discretion granted to the Attorney-General is thus not appropriate, erodes public trust and transparency, and has insufficient accountability or review mechanisms. Being able to commence proceedings under Division 268 of Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code without the real or perceived bias of political priorities influencing government decision making in both the domestic and international area, increases trust in government institutions and increases transparency, accountability, and democracy. It does this dual-fold, enabling the people of this country to pursue justice for wrongs committed under the Convention, albeit through the colonial systemically racist legal system, and by enabling accountability of previous decisions of the Attorney-General prohibiting proceedings through judicial review. Consequently, it also increases the efficacy of the international criminal justice system, which is significantly dependent upon the will of domestic states to prosecute individuals suspected of perpetrating genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.[ ]Under universal jurisdiction, Australia has the legal capacity to investigate and prosecute individuals suspected of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide regardless of where they are committed or by whom. This was noted by the Note Verbal No. 38/2018, Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations on Australian Views on the Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction. As noted by Shirley Scott in the Australian Journal of Human Rights, universal jurisdiction is a critical component of the international collective system of justice which attempts to ensure "that where a serious crime of international concern has been committed, States which have jurisdiction are unable or unwilling to act, and international courts and tribunals lack the jurisdiction or practical means of prosecuting the perpetrators of grave crimes, then another State may take up the action on behalf of the international community". There are currently 153 states who are party to the Convention including so-called Australia. Australia as party to the Convention undertakes "to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III" (Article V of the Convention). The "direct obligation to prevent genocide" of state parties was confirmed by the ICJ in the BosniaandHerzegovina v SerbiaandMontenegro case, including the responsibility "to employ all means reasonably available to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible." This is an obligation on all state parties. The carrying out of this obligation is exemplified by South Africa who brought the case of Genocide against the Israeli regime. Delayed Domestic Implementation of the Convention in Australia After the horrors of the Holocaust, the Convention grew out of a resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on their first session on 11 December 1946. The Convention was the first human rights treaty adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948 and signified the international community's commitment to 'never again' see the horrors of genocide—so-called Australia, made a strong appeal for its unanimous and speedy acceptance. So-called Australia signed the Convention on 11 December 1948, with support from then Labor Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, and the then Liberal opposition leader, Robert Menzies, both supporting that ratification. Despite this, successive governments failed to follow through on the requirement to enact the necessary domestic legislation to give force to the convention for over 50 years. In the 1990s, the International Criminal Court was being established and, domestically, public attention turned to the possibility of genocide having been perpetrated against this country's First Peoples. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody referred to the Convention, and the Bringing them home report, released in May 1997 which provides 689 pages of damning indictment of the genocidal policies used against Australia's First Peoples, with a whole chapter to "Contemporary separations". The report found that the removal of Indigenous peoples had constituted genocide as defined in the Convention'.[ ]The report recommended the full domestic effect to the Convention. The lack of domestic implementation was brought to the public's attention following several high profile court cases brought by First Peoples alleging genocide: Kruger v Commonwealth, where the court wrongfully said the removal of children from their parents was in their "best interests", Nulyarimma v Thompson which called out the "ten point plan" on native title as constituting acts of genocide, and Buzzacott v Hill where the plaintiff alleged the failure to list Arabunna Peoples land as world heritage was genocide. The latter two cases were dismissed on the basis that genocide was not an offence at Australian law. It was clear Australia was in breach of its obligations under international law. By then it had become the standard response from the Federal Government to say that while they accepted the responsibility to enshrine domestic legislation, the laws already in force in Australia provided substantially for the punishment of the classes of acts described in the Convention.[ ]By way of example, on 30 March 1949, the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, John Burton, wrote to the Attorney-General's department that he would be in general agreement with the view that existing Australian law provided effective penalties for the various acts described in the Convention as genocide.[ ]This was despite there being no provision for 'genocide as such' under the existing laws of the Commonwealth and the States and significant discrepancies in the identified analogous legislation.[ ]In 1992, the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade concluded that it is difficult "to know … whether the failure to legislate has been a matter of neglect or purposeful inaction". The Committee also recommended that the Australian Government introduce legislation to implement the Convention. Senator Brian Greig of the Australian Democrats introduced the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 and, in his second reading speech, Senator Greig referred to the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide as 'unfinished business' of the Commonwealth Parliament, and rejected the view that existing criminal laws at State and Territory level were sufficient protection against genocide which had been repeated by the Attorney-General of the time as recently as September 1999. While the Bill did not pass, the Australian Democrats instigated Australia's first and most significant parliamentary inquiry into Genocide as a crime in Australia, with the support of all parties except One Nation. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Government passed the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002, which received Royal Assent on 27 June 2002. When passing this amending bill, the Government included provisions providing that it did not apply to events which occurred prior to the commencement of the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Act 2002 on 26 September 2002, and the provisions that are the topic of this Bill, is commonly known as the Attorney-General's fiat. Conclusion This Bill brings a measure of accountability, as we see a global awakening to the horrors of modern genocide being committed across the world including in Sudan, the Congo, West Papua, occupied Palestine and so-called Australia. It represents an attempt to implement human rights more fully in this country as they were set out by the United Nations, and to remain accountable to upholding them. As a proud Djab Wurrung Gunnai and Gunditjamara woman, with some of the largest and most brutal massacres of this country having killed my people, I stand with all victims of genocide, and I will call it out wherever it occurs. I will stand against powers who would justify and legitimise the oppression, dispossession and genocide of First Peoples, and the occupation of Indigenous lands here and everywhere. As the global community grapples with the genocide on the Palestinian people in Gaza playing out before their eyes and, due to the Attorney-General's fiat, have no legal standing under the Convention to hold those responsible accountable, it is critical to review systems of accountability that exist in Australia, and in the name of Truth-telling, review this country's implementation and handling of the crime of the genocide. The Attorney-General's fiat prevents the rule of law, limits the ability of the Convention to operate as intended and can have a major impact on Australia's ability to prevent and punish genocide and related atrocity crimes with unimaginable potential consequences. As a democratic country who was very supportive of the original intention of the Convention, the Federal Government should have no problem passing this Bill and stating their intention to be accountable to the people who they serve. Passing this Bill is not a substitution for enshrining the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in full into domestic legislation and indeed fully upholding human rights in this country. Senator THORPE 280304 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BUSINESS 74 BUSINESS Rearrangement 74 16:17 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Davey, I move: That on Wednesday, 7 February 2023, general business notice of motion no. 453, standing in the name of Senator Davey relating to a request to the Auditor-General to perform a comprehensive review and analysis of all water recovery programs: (a) be called on immediately after formal business; (b) have precedence over all other business; and (c) be determined without amendment or debate. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, we're dealing with general business notice of motion No. 454. If you have a look at your Notice Paper,you will see that, if this motion is successful, it calls on notice of motion No. 453, also standing in the name of Senator Davey, immediately after formal motions, and it's to be determined without amendment or debate. So the question is that general business notice of motion No. 454, standing in the name of Senator Davey, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:22]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 DOCUMENTS 75 DOCUMENTS Basin Officials Committee 75 Order for the Production of Documents 75 16:25 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Davey, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on 26 February 2024, all minutes, file notes, briefing notes and other communications relating to each Basin Officials Committee meeting during the period 31 May 2022 to 14 December 2023. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 455, standing in the name of Senator Davey, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:27]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 76 Order for the Production of Documents 76 16:31 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 8 February 2024, the following documents relating to the decision on 27 January 2024 to pause Australia's funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA): (a) all documents, advice and correspondence between the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and: (i) the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, (ii) the Department of Defence, (iii) the Attorney General's Department, and (iv) the Department of Home Affairs; (b) all documents, advice and correspondence between the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and: (i) United Nations agencies including UNRWA, and (ii) other foreign governments; and (c) all documents, advice and correspondence that the Minister for Foreign Affairs relied on in making the decision, including evidence of Israel's allegations against UNRWA. 16:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move the amendments to Senator Faruqi's motion circulated in my name: Omit "Thursday, 8", substitute "Monday, 26". Omit paragraph (a)(ii). Paragraph (b), omit subparagraphs (i) and (ii), substitute "United Nations agencies, including UNRWA". Paragraph (c), omit "documents, advice and correspondence that the Minister for Foreign Affairs relied on in making the decision, including", add after "evidence" the words "the government has received in support". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendments put by Senator David Pocock be agreed to. Question negatived. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that general business notice of motion no. 452, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:33]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 12 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 35 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. 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.

 MOTIONS 77 MOTIONS Auditor-General: Water 77 16:35 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Davey, I move: That the Senate requests the Auditor-General to perform a comprehensive review and analysis of all water recovery programs made to date by the current Government; and that the Auditor-General's examination covers all aspects of those water recovery programs, including but not limited to: (a) reviewing all transactions related to the water recovery programs to ensure they comply with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules under subsection 105B(1) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; and (b) assessing the financial implications of water purchases, including cost-effectiveness and value for money in achieving program objectives; and (c) evaluating non-financial factors, such as environmental impact, community benefits and long-term sustainability of the water resource management strategies employed. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 453, standing in the name of Senator Davey and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:40]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 34 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. 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. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF URGENCY 78 MATTERS OF URGENCY Australian Government 78 16:44 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter from Senator Lambie: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Australian Government to adhere to principles of transparency and accountability for good government instead of ignoring them". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 16:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: "The need for the Australian Government to adhere to principles of transparency and accountability for good government instead of ignoring them" I rise to speak to the need for the Australian government to adhere to the principles of transparency and accountability for good government, instead of ignoring them. I will say the last bit again: instead of ignoring them. When I'm out there with my boots on the ground, the thing people say to me the most is that they don't trust politicians. They don't trust them do the right thing. They don't trust them to choose the needs of the Australian people over their own, and they don't trust them to choose people over politics. Polling done By the Australian Institute late last year found that three out of five Australians elected politicians, party officials and candidates were found to be the second-biggest threat to our democracy. Three out of five—isn't that just plain awful? We should be ashamed of ourselves. I know that I give a lot of my colleagues in this place a hard time, but I would also say that there are many politicians who are here for the right reasons. They believe in our democracy, and they believe in fighting for what is best for their communities. The problem is not them. The problem is the lack of transparency in our political system, especially when it comes to the major parties. Despite the Prime Minister's promise to lead a government with integrity and transparency, Australians are yet to really see that. Yes, we have a national anti-corruption commission, but that simply is not enough. We need real action on transparency, but I think it's clear that the last thing this government wants is transparency. I brought a motion to the Senate last year asking for the Prime Minister's diary to be published. The Prime Minister's office has resisted multiple freedom of information requests to disclose his diary. Time after time, these requests have been refused. His office claims that seeing that PM's diary would divert the office away from its usual important tasks. What a load of absolute rubbish! The Premier of Queensland, the Chief Minister of the ACT and even the President of the United States all proactively publish their diaries, and I would suggest that the President of the United States has quite a few more important tasks before him. Transparency and accountability are key principles of good government. They are what makes a country great and its democracy strong. According to the Prime Minister, we're about 18 months from the next federal election, and this government and this Prime Minister are running out of time to show the Australian people that they really believe in transparency and integrity. The last election saw a fall in the primary vote for the major parties. Australians voted in unprecedented numbers for Independents and micros. Many of those elected ran on a platform of integrity and greater transparency in our politics. This clearly scares the bejesus out of both major parties, and so it should. This government is working hard behind the scenes to lock down the system that worked so well for them. They are planning to change our electoral laws, and they are saying lots of reassuring things about putting donation caps on campaigns, which sounds good but, when Victoria did it, it wiped out Independent candidates. It's as simple as that. The government is also talking about upping public funding. That is the amount the candidate receives for each vote that they get. It's your—taxpayers'—money. This was introduced by the Labor government and was meant as insurance against the possibility of corruption, but increasing the public funding will mean that major parties will run their candidates in electorates that they know they can't possibly win, but they will get enough votes to get the public funding so that they can spend more on the next election and the one after that. What this government is not talking about is doing anything about the transparency of the amount of cash that is funnelled through their entities. I think most Australians would understand the term 'money-laundering'. It's when you take dirty money obtained through crime and spend it in a legitimate business to 'clean' the money. That's basically what these political entities are; they are to funnel cash from big donors to candidates. It's basically electoral money-laundering. Both major parties have these entities. They are like shelf companies that are set up to hold events, take donations and funnel them back through the campaigns. There is no transparency on these entities and this government could do something about that right now. This government and this Prime Minister could be bold and put real transparency measures into parliament and into our electoral system, but they probably won't because, despite what the Prime Minister says and what his government says, they don't want transparency. If they did, they would clean up the electoral funding system, get rid of those money-laundering entities and publish the Prime Minister's diary. Instead they just keep telling Australians, 'It's all fine—nothing to see here.' Australians are smarter than that. They see what you're doing and they see your lack of action. That's why I believe they will keep voting for Independents and microparties in record numbers, but you can wear that at the next election. Once Independents and micros have the balance of power in both houses, Australia will finally get, I can assure you, the integrity and transparency they deserve, and we will lead by example, unlike the government of today. 16:49 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank Senator Lambie for bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate, and I rise to speak on behalf of the government. This is a really important issue. Senator Lambie is right to say that this is something that the public is concerned about. I know, as someone who's been in this chamber since 2016, that it is an issue that I was well aware of when I was elected and that I talked about in my first speech as well, and it is something that the government is committed to. You need to consider this motion in the context of what we inherited when we came to government and the track record of our predecessors, and what we have done to turn that around. Not only was that an important focus during the lead-up to the election but there is what we have achieved in government as well. I think that Senator Lambie didn't go near giving the government some credit—and I know that's not her job to give the government credit, but I think there could have been some acknowledgement of the decisions that the government have made which have boosted transparency. When you think about what we inherited from those opposite, particularly from the term of the Morrison government—a lot of that was gone through on TV on Monday night, on the ABC—it was a complete mess. We all remember the multiple ministries that the Prime Minister swore himself into. One of the first things that Prime Minister Albanese did when he came to power was order an inquiry into that to try and uncover how that could possibly happen in a democratic government here in Australia but also what we can do to prevent it from happening again. We took action on that and passed legislation to ensure that something like that—where you have a prime minister appointing himself to multiple ministries—can't happen again. I also want to talk about the integrity commission that we have brought in, the NACC. The previous government for years promised to bring in an integrity commission, yet they progressed absolutely nothing in that regard. It is something that this government delivered on and it's something that I think will be an important legacy of this government—that we have brought this in. I'm sure that that will help ensure public accountability as well as help to restore public confidence in the actions of government. The other important changes that we've been making are around the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The previous government stacked multiple former Liberal and National Party hacks and members of the party onto the AAT. It was something that this government said that we wanted to reform, and we have taken action on that. We have introduced a merit-based selection process to ensure that the people who are appointed to the AAT are capable of doing it, as we go about the more significant reform of ensuring the AAT is fit for purpose and serves the Australian people as was intended. So, when you talk about the integrity of this government and the role that we have played, since coming to power, in ensuring that we are doing our bit to help restore integrity in government, we have a proud record in the almost two years that we have been in government. Whether it is bringing in the NACC, which I think will be an important reform; whether it is ensuring that a prime minister can't appoint himself to multiple ministries again; or, indeed, whether it is bringing in important reforms to the AAT that ensure that there is a merit-based selection process, this is a government that is delivering on its promises to the Australian people and doing its part. We know that there is much more to do because this challenge of restoring the public's confidence in government is an ongoing one, and we continue to do that day in, day out, whether it's responding to questions on notice or responding to orders for the production of documents—and, on both counts, in government we have already responded to many more than our predecessors did, and that is only two years in. What we are doing is ensuring we walk the walk on this in terms of our reforms, because we want the Australian public to have confidence in this government. We understand the importance of restoring integrity to government. We want the public to have confidence in our decision-making as we act in the national interest and continue to restore integrity to government. 16:54 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I would just like to remind those who are listening at home of the motion that is before us here in the Senate moved by Senator Lambie: The need for the Australian Government to adhere to principles of transparency and accountability for good government instead of ignoring them". I would like to commend Senator Lambie for bringing forward this motion to the Senate, because this is a government that promised to be the most transparent ever, and in its practice is turning out to be the least transparent in terms of how it deals with questions from the opposition and questions from the crossbench. But, more importantly, the most intrinsic part of transparency and accountability is telling the truth. It is making sure that you do not purvey untruths; that you do not mislead the Australian people; that you do not, to quote old English, hornswoggle; and that, to use the language of young people, you do not cap—that you are not a capper. Unfortunately, we have a government that was elected on an untruth. Senator McGRATH 217241 I will take the interjection from Senator Smith. It wasn't an untruth; it was many untruths. But the main untruth is that this government said it had no plans to change the stage 3 tax reforms. And guess what? Over the last almost two years, Prime Minister Albanese and members of this Labor Party, with their fingers and legs crossed, day after day said they had no plans to change the Australian taxation system. We all knew that they were befuddling the Australian people. We all knew that they were prevaricating. We all knew that untruths were being told. But it was not until the last few days that the Prime Minister did come clean. That's why this motion is so important, because it talks about transparency and accountability. In question time today, members of the coalition asked senior members of the Labor Party where the Labor Party stood on reform or changes to negative gearing. The response from the Labor ministers was that they had no plans. We know what that means. It means they do have plans but they just haven't told us yet. Questions were put to the Labor Party about whether they would put capital gains tax on the family home. What did the Labor Party ministers say? They did not deny it. They did not deny that they had plans to do it. They did not rule out putting, effectively, an inheritance tax on the family home. They did not rule out smashing the aspiration of Australians who want to get ahead in life. This debate comes down to that core element of truth, of making sure that, when you speak to the Australian people and when you commit to do something, when you as a politician make a promise, you deliver on that promise. What we've witnessed over the last two years is a Labor Party that made a series of promises that they would not change the stage 3 tax plan, and they did. So, if they're prepared to make that change, to break that promise, to purvey that untruth to the Australian people, what does that say about what they're going to do about a capital gains tax on the family home? What does that say to the Australian people about negative gearing? What does that say to the Australian people about anything that is uttered by Prime Minister Albanese or by any member of the Labor Party? Quite simply, you cannot believe a word they say, because this government is a purveyor of untruths and needs to be thrown out at the next election. 17:00 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Obviously, I rise here in support of Senator Lambie's urgency motion. Of course I do. As Australians, we pride ourselves on having an open and transparent society—or at least I hope that we do. I hope there is not a single person in this place who would argue that we should act in the shadows or work to cover things up. Yet increasingly, as far as I can tell, that's exactly what we can see. Would you call the government's COVID inquiry 'open and transparent'? I wouldn't. It's an inquiry that deliberately avoids examining key issues relating to the pandemic. It's an inquiry that purposefully rules out questions that the public want answered. My fellow senators, don't sit here and agree that we must be open and transparent while failing to call for a royal commission into the greatest health disaster in the history of our nation. There are many issues in this place that are being conveniently swept under the carpet in the hope that they'll just disappear, but they have not disappeared. The public still want and need answers, and in an open and transparent system that we, hopefully, should all aspire to have, senators like you and me must ask questions no matter where the answers might lead. By all means, let's agree on the need for openness and transparency, but agreeing on that whilst doing nothing to facilitate it is, unfortunately, the height of hypocrisy. That's what it is. If we want to build trust with the people that we represent, let's demand a royal commission into the pandemic response. Let's demand a full inquiry into the handling of the Brittany Higgins compensation package. Openness and transparency—let's have at it. 17:02 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Labor talks a big game about transparency and accountability. Any whiff of a cover-up from the Liberals, and you can bet they'll be the first asking for heads to roll. But, as soon as the tables are turned and the spotlight is on them, Labor quickly demonstrates that they're no better. Yesterday I expected documents about the Federal Circuit and Family Law Court in Burnie to be handed over after my successful order for the production of documents last year. Now that it's time to deliver, the government's decided they can't stump up the documents. It's not unreasonable for the government to say that making some of these documents public could impact current negotiations. I don't want that. I want this issue to be resolved. But that argument doesn't stand for all of the documents I asked for, and the government is hiding behind weak excuses so they don't have to comply with the Senate's order and hand them over. This is why people hate politics. They just want politicians to tell them the truth when they've stuffed up something or something's gone wrong. Instead, the major parties lie through their teeth. They're in it to save their own skin and hold on to power. It doesn't matter whether or not that means doing the right thing for the people they're supposed to represent. Neither party has taken responsibility for how the family law court in Burnie ended up in this position. The coalition stuffed it up, Labor has stuffed it up and the Tasmanian Liberal government has stuffed it up as well. We have no idea why three years on we're still talking about this and it hasn't been fixed. I'm frustrated. I just want a good outcome for the people of North West Tasmania. Both Liberal and Labor at state and federal levels are more interested in playing political games than in telling the truth and getting on with it, and Tasmanians are wearing the consequences. We need to stop stuffing up. 17:04 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Thank you to Senator Lambie for pointing out in this motion the need for this Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock government to start adhering to the principles of transparency and accountability for good government as Labor promised before the election. Since assuming office in 2022, the Albanese government and their Greens and teal coalition partners have completely ignored these principles. It's clear that on big issues Labor uses the deliberate tactics of hiding facts and lying or telling half-truths to deceive Australian voters. The list of examples is long, and I'll touch on some of them. The Prime Minister promised to hold a royal commission into the government's response to COVID-19. Where is it? Dragged kicking and screaming, the government agreed to set up a whitewash committee of inquiry lacking the powers to inquire, with insiders and cheerleaders of state and federal governments heading the whitewash and with terms of reference excluding the states' actions. What are they trying to hide? Admittedly the government did not oppose my successful motion to refer the drafting of terms of reference for a possible future royal commission. However it was forced to do so after the announcement of its whitewash inquiry was ridiculed and panned in this chamber and across Australia. What about the abuse of Senate processes? Labor have mastered the art of guillotining debate on major issues in this Senate. This is to avoid public scrutiny of government bills when the government have the numbers to pass a bill yet do not want debate that may reveal the deficiencies and inequities of proposed legislation that would embarrass the government or expose Labor power grabs in conjunction with their Senate coalition partners the Greens, teal Senator Pocock and, sadly all too often, the Jacqui Lambie Network. In the same vein, orders for the production of government held documents are routinely delayed and the documents withheld. Replies to requests may say they hold them yet decline to provide them, without giving reasons. Right to information requests become the norm, even though senators should be able to access the documents routinely. Today, the government is introducing industrial relations legislation that the private sector, from small businesses to major employers, almost universally canned as overly complicated, deceitful and damaging to the Australian economy. Workers and employers see government industrial relations bills as giving union bosses enormous power as the reward for steering members' union fees into Labor campaign funding. One Nation is introducing an amendment to clarify the rights of so-called casual black-coal miners who have been underpaid, on average, around $33,000 a year. The culprits are labour-hire firms, including the world's largest labour-hire firm, with the agreement of the CFMMEU union bosses who chose to shaft their members in return for favours from employers. The government's own Fair Work Commission signed off on sham enterprise agreements without proper scrutiny. One Nation will hold this dishonest government accountable. 17:07 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I support this motion brought by Senator Lambie. Canberra can be a dark place, but there's no place darker in Canberra than inside the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence. The two so-called parties of government—others would say war parties—have fostered a toxic culture in Defence where a small group of mates in a dark, smoke filled room operate with no oversight, no scrutiny and no accountability. Just today, we spoke about a bill that would've taken a small step towards some oversight of Defence, and it was voted against by the Albanese government. It was voted against not on principle but on some flimsy speaking notes from a Defence flunky that were just regurgitated by the minister. Defence has over 16,000 active contracts, with a total value of over $200 billion. That's on foot now. There's no effective oversight and sod all accountability. There's just a bunch of mates patting themselves on the back, giving themselves Orders of Australia, giving themselves promotions and giving themselves blank cheque after blank cheque. No wonder they don't want to let the light in. No wonder they don't want people to know what's going on behind closed doors. Let's just run through a couple of those examples. Do you want to know who decided to sign off on spending $45-plus billion to get currently—I don't know—eight but probably six, five or four Hunter frigates? It's the single biggest live procurement contract the Commonwealth's entered into. Do you want to know who did this without any value-for-money assessment? Do you want to know who or why this contract was signed? You don't get to know. They've lost the records, apparently. Do you want to know who we sell military equipment to or what that equipment is—whether it's Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Israel or both sides of the conflict in Sudan at the same time? You don't get to know. They don't tell us. Do you want to know why we've been waiting more than half a decade to just get a patrol boat in the water and actually into commission? Do you want to know who's responsible for that delay or how much it's cost? You don't get to know that either. Do you want to know why Defence is currently chopping up and burying a bunch of billion-dollar helicopters that just a few months ago they said were fine and terrific and dandy? Do you want to know how or why? No, you don't get to. Silence. And do you want to know why the flight safety standards for those same helicopters aren't in the public domain? Do you want to see the flight safety standards and the testing that happened, maybe, to get some idea, given that four lives were lost on those same helicopters? No, you don't get to. Silence. You don't get accountability from Defence. It's as bad under the Albanese Labor government as it was under the coalition. We get all this rhetoric about transparency. We got all these social media posts and spin from the Albanese government when they were in opposition that things were going to be different, things were going to change. But, instead of that transparency, we've got the same brick wall that separates the public interest and the public from the decisions and the decision-makers shielding mates, shielding people who should be held to account and shielding people like senior officers in the AFP, who we found out this week spent heaven knows how much money and how many resources issuing a covert operation against a 13-year-old boy with autism. We don't get the transparency. We don't get to see who did it. Without that, we don't get the accountability. 17:11 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak in favour of Senator Lambie's urgency motion. I thank her for the opportunity to shine a light on a couple of issues that I think are critical for the Senate to not just think about but address. Transparency in political donations at the federal level is an absolute joke. Unfortunately, as of yet, nothing has changed since we had a change in government. Last week we learnt that some $259 million has poured into political parties in the last financial year, yet we know very little about the sources of much of the funding. In fact, the source of 27 per cent of Labor's income is unknown. That's roughly $23 million of dark money fuelling their political machinery. The coalition, not to be outdone, received some $27.5 million in dark money. Even if we just look at the roughly $160 million in declared funding to the major parties, it's impossible to distinguish between political fundraising and other sources of income. This isn't good enough. We should be able to see where funding is coming from and who it's coming from. Dodgy business forum memberships and fundraising dinners mean that Australians just don't know who is buying access to their politicians. I welcome the government's commitment to lowering the donation threshold, but more needs to be done to clean up some of these dodgy sources of income and prevent dark money from entering politics. We're clearly running out of time to do this. This is urgent. The other thing that I think we need to be shining a light on is access to this building. Access is a good thing, but we know that there are now over 2,000 people who have access-all-areas passes to this building, and the Australian public have no idea who they are. This is the people's house. Australians deserve to know who is accessing these halls, who is able to visit senators and members and ministers to talk about upcoming legislation and exert pressure. Access is a good thing. We shouldn't stop access, but I would argue that there needs to be transparency when it comes to who is lobbying. Who are all these in-house lobbyists? We learnt during Senator McKenzie's inquiry into air services, with the big concerns around the decision made regarding Qatar and Qantas and some of the allegations there, that the current infrastructure minister provides sponsored passes to Qantas government relations staff, and the former coalition infrastructure minister also provided sponsored passes. I think if most Australians heard this, they'd probably say, 'Hang on, maybe that's something we should know about,' when these decisions are made—that this infrastructure minister gave this company an 'access all areas' pass and now he's making a decision. I certainly would love to see more colleagues in here disclosing who they're giving sponsored passes to. And I would love to see, at some point in time, a public registry. Just as we make disclosures through our register of interests, I think details of who we give access to should be on there. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 83 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Taxation 83 17:15 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 A letter has been received from Senator Dean Smith: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The failure of the Government to categorically rule out changes that limit the use of negative gearing or franking credits, and changing the tax treatment of the family home, demonstrating that the Albanese Labor Government cannot be trusted to not impose more taxes on hard working and aspirational Australians. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whip. 17:15 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The motion that we're discussing this afternoon reads: The failure of the Government to categorically rule out changes that limit the use of negative gearing or franking credits, and changing the tax treatment of the family home, demonstrating that the Albanese Labor Government cannot be trusted to not impose more taxes on hard working and aspirational Australians. At the last election Australians went to the ballot voting on many issues, but central to the voting decision of many Australians was a list of promises that had been made by now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese: a promise to provide energy relief; a promise not to increase taxes; a promise to deliver greater transparency and integrity; and promises on superannuation. But, as we begin this new parliamentary year in 2024, Australian voters have been reminded in the most graphic of ways that these promises now lie in tatters. It might be the Chinese year of the dragon, but it's the political year of broken promises led by Labor and Prime Minister Albanese. I draw the attention of my coalition senators to the presence of some Labor senators: Senator Polley from Tasmania and Senator Grogan from South Australia. What do we know? We know that the most recent decision to change a position, to break a promise, was unanimously endorsed by the Labor government, by the Labor cabinet, by the full ministry and by the caucus. So this is not just about the broken character of Prime Minister Albanese; this is about the broken character of every member of the Labor Party in federal parliament and, indeed, of the whole Labor Party organisation. A promise to reduce energy prices by $275—abandoned. A promise to deliver a plan to lower interest rates—abandoned. Australians are now having to live with a cumulative effect of 12 interest rate rises. They are living with energy costs. Gas is up by 28 per cent. Electricity is up by 18 per cent in just 15 months. Anthony Albanese gave Australians a clear commitment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Smith, use the correct title. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Prime Minister Albanese gave Australians a clear commitment that he would also make no changes to franking credits. One of the last things we did last year was to pass a bill in the Senate that carried those broken promises around franking credits. The broken promise of all broken promises is the decision to renege on the legislated stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3 tax cuts. And it's not just a broken promise. The Prime Minister did not wake up one day and break a promise. He went out to Australians over the summer on 12 separate occasions and did not give them a hint or a glimmer of an idea that on 11 December he had already asked the Treasury—through the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers—to begin work on cost-of-living relief measures. What were those cost-of-living relief measures? They were abandoning legislated tax cuts in the form of the third stage of the three-stage tax reform plan. Labor wants to talk about the tax initiative itself, and that's fine. But by the end of this year there'll be only one matter on the minds and the lips of Australian voters, and that will be the catalogue of broken promise upon broken promise upon broken promise. So my challenge this afternoon is to Senator Polley from Tasmania and to Senator Grogan from South Australia to rule out changes to negative gearing, changes to taxes on people's homes, changes to franking credits. This afternoon, in your five-minute contributions, you can stand here and rule it out and you can say to your electors, 'I will challenge Prime Minister Albanese to not break another promise in in 2024'—your challenge. Do you accept it? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Smith, address your remarks through the chair. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I suspect that the Prime Minister is sitting on a volume of other broken promises. He is just looking for the opportunity to— (Time expired) 17:21 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania As usual, we have senators from that side coming in here and wanting to rewrite history and talk about broken promises. But I'm not going to be dissuaded from making the contribution that I want to make in relation to the fact that the Liberals, with the Nationals, want to distract from the position that we have taken to give Australian workers a bigger tax cut than they would have had under the previous government. The position that they've taken, in a very short period of time since the Prime Minister made this announcement with our Treasurer, is quite indefensible and untenable. Let's not forget that their deputy leader, Ms Ley, said that they would roll it back, in government, making 11.5 million Australian workers pay more tax. Now, according to Mr Dutton, they will wave these changes through. But what does that really mean? I don't know whether everyone else has caught up with Nemesis, the great series on the ABC, but I think Nemesishas reminded everyone, including the Australian public, how much dishonesty, how much hatred there is within the caucus of those opposite. Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Polley, resume your seat. The coalition was heard in silence in accordance with standing order number 197. I ask that you extend the same courtesy to Senator Polley. Senator Polley, you have the call. Senator POLLEY e5x Thank you for that protection. No matter how much they try to interject, the reality is that the Australian people remember only too clearly the broken promises of Mr Abbott. They remember very clearly the failures of the Turnbull government. And let's talk about Mr Morrison's government, shall we? According to Nemesis—it's not just us saying this; even their our own colleagues are saying this—when Mr Morrison was Treasurer he used to leak all the tax policies to the media before even talking to his own cabinet colleagues, whereas in this circumstance the Prime Minister and the Treasurer went through due process, got the support of cabinet, got the support of the caucus of the Labor government. And we will never walk away— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Chandler, I have called you to order twice. Please comply with the standing orders. Senator POLLEY e5x We have been honest and upfront with the Australian people about this position that we've taken. It's a very different time economically than it was under the Morrison government when they introduced these tax arrangements. We made an assessment based on the best interest of the Australian people. We have a cost-of-living issue that is alive and well. We are doing things that are going to tangibly assist working Australians. And let's not forget, those people opposite do not appreciate that all Australians aspire to a better future for themselves. They're all aspirational, not just the top end of town. It appears to me that the only people you're really concerned about when it comes to the tax changes is the top end of town—concerned that people like ourselves are not going to get as much in the way of a tax cut. That is because it's in your DNA. That's because, when you were in government for a decade, you did nothing but keep Australian workers' wages down. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Polley, I remind you to address your remarks through the chair. Senator POLLEY e5x What I'm saying is that aspiration is not exclusively for people already doing well. We want every Australian to be able to get ahead. We want our nurses who are earning $73,000 a year to get a tax cut of $1,504 a year. That is $800 more than what they would have got under stage 3. I don't walk away from that. What I find just amazing is that, even with the fresh memories of this wonderful series that we've been watching called Nemesis, they have learnt nothing on that side of the chamber—nothing at all. They don't understand and relate to Australian workers. They obviously don't appreciate how difficult people are having it out there and how hard it is to make ends meet. They did nothing about the housing crisis, they did nothing about homelessness and they did nothing about improving Australian workers' wages, particularly in the service sector of aged care, early childhood education and disability. If it is so bad, if this tax policy is so bad, why are you going to support it? Why don't you stand up for once and do something that you actually believe in? If it is such bad policy and you don't want people to get this tax cut, then don't support it. You're doing it because you know in your heart of hearts that it is the right thing to do, which the Australian people can rely on us to do each and every day while we are in government. (Time expired) 17:26 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Folks listening to this debate could be forgiven for thinking there was a massive difference in the policies of the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party— Senator Watt 245759 Get a new line for a new year. Senator McKIM JKM when, in fact, there is barely a glimmer of sunlight about the thickness of a playing card between the two. That is the case around a range of policy areas: support for fossil fuels, delivery for big gaming, delivery for the big supermarket corporations and also, of course, tax policy in Australia, which is a significant part of the topic of this debate. Let's be very clear about how we find ourselves here today. Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the tax cuts were legislated even though Labor didn't support them. But they ended up voting for them because they were too weak to stand up to Mr Morrison, Mr Dutton and Mr Cormann. That's why stage 3 tax cuts for the top end of town were legislated in Australia. Then the Labor Party came into government. They were very triumphant on the night, but it is worth noting that their vote went backwards by nearly three per cent, so it's hardly a ringing endorsement from the Australian people. Consistently they said that stage 3 was legislated and it was in. Then Labor quite rightly, in the view of the Greens, reframed the stage 3 tax cuts because economic conditions had changed. We agree with the Prime Minister that, when conditions change, so should government policy. We also point out that we should therefore talk about things like negative gearing and climate policy in the same context. But what Labor did was not dramatically recast the stage 3 tax cuts in such a way that it would make Australia's tax system more progressive. What the Labor Party did was make some reasonably minor changes that still will result in Australia's tax system being more regressive than it currently is as we stand here debating today prior to 1 July. Now, because the Prime Minister has rightly said that, when conditions change, so should government policy, now is the time to talk about negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. Now is the time to talk about the $200 billion in tax concessions that property investors are going to get over the next five years and now is the time to talk about the fact that they are using those concessions to outbid Australian renters and young Australians who are dreaming of owning their first home. (Time expired) 17:29 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'll give it to Senator McKim: whilst I did enjoy Senator Watt's interjection that perhaps Senator McKim could look for some new lines in a new parliamentary year— Senator SCARR 282997 Senator Shoebridge might well assist Senator McKim—at least we know what we're going to get from Senator McKim. He is quite upfront. He believes in a socialist economic policy, as do his brethren sitting on the Greens benches. We know what we're going to get from them. Senator McKim is advocating for changes to negative gearing and advocating for changes in terms of the CGT discount. We know where the Greens stand. But the whole point of this debate is the promise that was made. I think the tally is that the promise was made almost 100 times by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others in the government that they would not change the stage 3 tax cuts. So, when Senator Polley gets up and says that those on this side of the chamber are attempting to rewrite history, that is a gross distortion of the facts of the matter. We are not the ones trying to rewrite history here. The history is there, and those sitting in the gallery know what the history is. They will remember the Prime Minister saying, 'My word is my bond.' That is what the Prime Minister said in particular in relation to this context. They will remember that. They will also remember that, as recently as mid-December, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer stated at least a dozen times that they hadn't changed their position on the stage 3 had tax cuts. When they were specifically asked as recently as only a few months ago about the stage 3 tax cuts, they said they had not changed their position. But at the same time the government had commissioned Treasury to do the research for them to do the policy work to change their position. We were in a cost-of-living crisis in mid-December. We'd been in a cost-of-living crisis for a number of months. I can remember taking the shadow Treasurer to one of the food banks in the greater Ipswich region, where my office is located. That food bank was seeing people it had never seen before as clients. We were in a cost-of-living crisis then. But as recently as December the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were saying they were not reconsidering their position. Senator Polley said that the government has been honest and upfront. That was the phrase Senator Polley used: upfront. On my understanding of the plain English meaning of 'upfront', before an election you make a promise and a commitment and then, after you get elected, you keep the promise or commitment. It's pretty simple. When politicians of whatever stripe—it doesn't matter what colour they are—don't do that, we all suffer, because people then say, 'Well, you just can't trust anything they say.' That's the position we're in now in terms of this government. For the Australians who are listening to this debate, be very, very careful. When members of the government—the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance—say that they're not currently considering something or they're not reconsidering, that's a red flag, because they may well change their position. You've got no guarantee. When they say they have 'no plan' to do something, that's a red flag. Most of all, when the Prime Minister looks the Australian people in the eye and says to them, 'My word is my bond,' then you're in a great deal of trouble. That is what the Australian people have learnt over the last few weeks. 17:34 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia We started with a robust and definitive no from the Liberal and National parties when this policy was first introduced. They said no to the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts, which apply to every single working Australian. Then we skipped through a very unedifying performance on Monday, which lacked adherence to Senate rules and even to some forms of reality, shifting the focus of those opposite from the reality of the substance of this tax cut issue that we're debating here to a banal conversation about which public servant took what phone call at which time. This showed an abject sense of desperation. Now, in a desperate bid to find another front and another way to argue out anything but the content or substance of the changes here—the Albanese Labor government tax cuts that give every Australian worker or taxpayer a tax cut—they're now here scaremongering about the things that we're not doing. It seems rather curious to me when we're talking about a mob that lectures about trust and integrity yet was embroiled in scandals just about every single day of its nine years in government, with a Prime Minister who tried to become some clandestine one-man cabinet, which was not only unlawful but unprecedented and disrespectful to not only the Australian people but his entire party. We'll just skip past that: 'Oh, that doesn't matter. We'll forget that.' It was a government that constantly obfuscated. Let's go to robodebt. Let's go to sports rorts. And you want to sit there and lecture us about integrity. I don't think so. The constant infighting doesn't appear to have changed that much. If you want to have a look at that, we've got some screenings on Monday nights at the moment. Just bring your own popcorn, because Nemesis is— Senator Hughes 273828 I want to watch The Killing Season. Senator GROGAN 296331 Yes, you can watch that too, because that's also there. What the Albanese Labor government tax cuts are doing is delivering a better, more progressive tax system. The plan returns bracket creep for all taxpayers. We're dropping two tax rates, lifting two thresholds and essentially giving everyone a tax cut. The coalition's plan was legislated five years ago, and the world was a very different place, before the once-in-100-year pandemic, persistent inflation, higher interest rates, two conflicts and global uncertainty. Australians have been under sustained, increased pressure. As the circumstances changed that radically in five years, it would be a very blind and deaf government that didn't respond to those changes, and we are neither. So we have responded, and the tax cuts that we are bringing in will make a fundamental difference to the cost-of-living pressures that people are facing every single day in this country. Those opposite are now in a situation where they're going to vote for these Albanese Labor government tax cuts. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. If you genuinely believed it wasn't, you would have kept up the fight against them, but you haven't. You're now just going off down rabbit holes about any old thing you can grab hold of. Where we are now is a situation where the policy settings are right, they reflect the national interest and they are responsive to the economic circumstances that we are facing. We are the party of lower tax. We are the party of a better, fairer tax system. That is what the Labor government is doing. 17:39 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I fear this motion is indicative of part of what is wrong with politics in Australia. The crossbench has been calling on the Albanese government for the last 18 months to redesign these tax cuts. And I applaud the Albanese government for, in a cost-of-living crisis, putting more money into the pockets of people who need it. Scott Morrison, at the 2019 election, was talking about paying down the debt so as not to burden future generations. When COVID hit, the coalition government spent money to keep people alive, to keep people above the poverty line, to keep our economy going. People understand that they want a government that is going to govern. What we're seeing now is this hysteria around things like negative gearing and capital gains tax. What I'm hearing from people I represent is that they hope that politicians will now actually move on to talking about these things, and maybe get on with changing this system that treats housing as an investment vehicle over something that people in our communities should afford. From the outside, it must seem strange that these politicians—who, on average, own more investment properties than the average Australian—are trying to entrench a system which means that young people are locked out of the property market. If you don't have the bank of mum and dad, you're out of luck. Surely that's not the kind of Australia we want going forward. It shouldn't matter whether or not you're born into a wealthy family. You should be able to afford to pay the rent and do meaningful work in our communities. We're not going to get there unless we're willing to have the debate and make some changes to things like capital gains tax discount and negative gearing. 17:41 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I, too, rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I congratulate Senator Smith for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate. I think it's telling, from the contributions we've heard, that those opposite seem to want to talk about a certain ABC TV show more than they want to talk about their own tax policy. At the heart of this change is a significant broken promise. The trouble for the Labor Party is they have form in this area—and not just over this government, the Albanese government. They've got multiple examples of form in this area. They've got form in this area on changes to superannuation taxation, where they said there would be no changes but they introduced an increase in taxation on superannuation for self-managed super funds—a particularly egregious change where balances of over $3 million face a new tax. We've seen examples where farmers have, under the then rules, put property into self-managed super funds, where property happens to be their chief asset in terms of their farming property, and that asset has gone over $3 million, and now, in the very near future, they will potentially face tax bills on the unrealised gains of those assets that they will have to potentially sell property to be able to pay, or they will have to find cash in their own pocket. This is a government that has form in this area, and we saw it in previous governments as well. We saw it in the Rudd-Gillard Labor government—the carbon tax commitment, another broken promise there. We saw it in the rollback of the tax relief that was in the 2014 budget. We saw it in previous Labor governments—the infamous 'l-a-w, law' tax cuts under the Keating government, where we saw a broken promise from a Labor prime minister. We have a pattern of behaviour from this government. No matter how they want to justify it, when you look the Australian people in the eye and make a firm commitment—not just once but 100 times—and when you make it repeatedly and when you make it in the clearest possible language, that gives those on this side and the Australian people the right to then ask the question, to ask for definitive answers, about things like negative gearing and franking credits—which is the issue that Senator Dean Smith raised earlier—and, in the fullness of time, when the Labor government has looked at the books and decided it needs a little bit of extra tax revenue, whether those things won't come under the microscope. We've already heard from the crossbench that they want those things under the microscope and that they want those things to be considered. You can understand the hesitation of the Australian people when they hear the rhetoric from those opposite and the constant references to a certain ABC TV show and to events and activities that happened years and years and years ago. Those opposite don't want to defend their own policy positions, policy backflips, policy changes and broken promises, because they have form in this area. The Australian people don't have a high level of trust in this government to say what it's going to do and to follow through. We will continue to hold this government to account. We will continue to point out where they have said things very clearly on the public record dozens and dozens of times to the Australian people and then gone back on their word. We're not allowed to use a certain word in this place, apparently. We've been banned from saying it. But the fact is that mistruths will come back to haunt this government, and they should. A prime minister who says, 'My word is my bond,' should be able to be believed. This one can't. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The time for the discussion has expired. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 87 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS President 87 17:46 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Before we proceed to the next item, I advise the Senate that the President will be temporarily absent at the commencement of our sitting tomorrow. In accordance with standing orders, the Deputy President will take the chair. BUSINESS 88 BUSINESS Rearrangement 88 17:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. Leave not granted. Senator WATT 245759 Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion concerning the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 to be moved and determined immediately. And I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the question be now put on the motion to suspend standing orders.  

The Senate divided. [17:52]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

 31 AYES Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:55 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:55]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

 31 AYES Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

17:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That a motion relating to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. And I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the question be now put on the procedural motion moved by the minister.  

The Senate divided. [17:59]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

31 AYES Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:02 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the procedural motion moved by the minister be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [18:02]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

31 AYES Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That in order to provide for the consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023— (a) today: (i) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment, (ii) the routine of business after the tabling and consideration of committee reports and government responses be consideration of the bill (second reading speeches only) for not more than 3 hours, after which the Senate adjourn without debate; and, (b) on Thursday, 8 February 2024: (i) after formal motions, the question on the second reading of the bill be put, after which the routine of business till 1.30 pm be consideration of the bill only, (ii) the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put at 3.30 pm, (iii) paragraphs (i) and (ii) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142, (iv) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm until consideration of the bill is concluded; and (v) after consideration of the bill has concluded, the Senate return to its routine of business. 18:05 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The procedural motion just agreed to requires that the substantive motion be put without amendment or debate, so I will now put that question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [18:06]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

 30 AYES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than five minutes. Leave not granted. Senator CASH I0M Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement of no more than five minutes. I have to say, seriously, I only wanted five minutes to comment on what we have just seen this government do. Senator David Pocock, I'm going to have to include you in this. I look across this chamber. On what basis were these people elected? That of a lie, in relation to what they said about transparency: that they would all bring a new era of transparency to this place. Senator David Pocock, you told Canberrans you believed in transparency. The Australian Greens say a lot, all the time. I don't believe any of it. As for this government, guess what Mr Albanese said prior to the election: he promised the Australian people that, if they elected him and the Australian Labor Party to office, he and his ministers would deliver transparency, integrity and accountability in every single thing they'd do. Well, from the first day you were elected and you walked into this place, we have seen those principles absolutely trashed. You are not only trashing those principles; quite frankly, you are trashing democracy, because democracy demands that this Senate fulfil its duty to the Australian people. And what is that duty? This is a house of review. We are here to interrogate the legislation that a government brings forward, whether it is a Labor government or a coalition government. And what have you done today? You've walked in—'Happy new year from the Albanese Labor government! Not only am I breaking a promise to the Australian people in relation to the legislated stage 3 tax cuts, even though my word is my bond, but this is what I'm saying to the businesses across Australia: regardless of your size, small, medium or large, there'll be another slap in the face. We slapped you in the face in 2022 when we rushed through the multi-employer bargaining laws. We smacked you in the face in 2023 when we rushed through the labour hire changes.' But a few weeks later, the second day we are in this parliament, this is the standard of transparency that Mr Anthony Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, now lives by. Well, guess what? The Australian people are on to you. They're on to you in the first instance because of your broken promises, but now every business in Australia knows that if they want to get rid of these laws there is now only one option, and that is to vote in a Peter Dutton led coalition government. Why? Because we will stand up for the employers of this country. We will stand up for the small businesses of this country. And do you know why we will? Because small businesses provide the jobs to Australians. Governments don't create jobs. They put in place economic frameworks. And guess what? The economic framework that the Labor Party—in conjunction with Senator Pocock, in conjunction with the Australian Greens, in conjunction with Senator Thorpe—are putting in place is an economic framework that is going to kill businesses in this country. That is not us saying that. That is the businesses of Australia who are begging you to please listen to them. All they want to do every morning is get up, open their businesses and give Australians well-paid, sustainable jobs. And you, with all this red tape, with all this complexity, with all this confusion, are going to deny so many businesses in Australia that opportunity. But the sad thing is, colleagues—and this is a reality—the Labor Party don't care, and we all know why they don't care: because they have the numbers to deliver on the union agenda. You only have to have a look at the little bits and pieces that they are sneaking through, such as union officials being given extra right of entry. And the right to disconnect—well, what a joke that is when it comes to transparency. You didn't talk about it before the election. You didn't talk about it during the consultation. And guess what, colleagues? If I pulled out the legislation now, you'd see that it's not even in there. We wouldn't have a clue what it is. We haven't been given an opportunity to have a look at it. And I hope all the businesses in the ACT are looking at Senator David Pocock, because he has sold you out. The Greens have sold you out. And the Australian Labor Party have yet again sold you out. 18:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, it's only the first week, and Senator Cash is already losing the plot. And why is she losing the plot? Senator Hughes 273828 Acting Deputy President— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Do you have a point of order? Senator Hughes 273828 That's a personal reflection. We expect nothing more from the mug and grub that Murray Watt is, but that is a personal reflection. Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw, and I ask Senator Hughes to do the same. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Hughes, please withdraw. Senator Hughes 273828 I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Watt. Senator WATT 245759 Well, already, in the first week, we can see from that performance by Senator Cash that the coalition, and Senator Cash in particular, are back in their happy place. They're back in their happy place complaining loudly about changing the laws to protect workers and to increase wages. They complain every time Labor does anything about changing the laws to protect workers and increase wages. Why is it that the coalition are always angry? Whether it be Mr Dutton, Senator Cash, Senator Hughes—every member of the coalition—they're always angry, always shouting at people. There are things that they choose to be angry about. They're angry this week about the Albanese government delivering better tax cuts for middle Australia and low-income earners. They're always angry about wages going up. They're always angry about protecting workers. Let's not forget that Senator Cash, in particular, has a track record of being angry and making all sorts of hyperbolic statements about IR changes. It was Senator Cash who told us, when we changed the laws in the first place, that we were going to go back to the Dark Ages. Senator Cash, did they have these in the dark ages? I don't remember them having technology in the Dark Ages. Maybe that's because we're not in the Dark Ages, despite our having changed those laws. Senator Cash told us that we were going to have empty supermarket shelves when we changed the laws for IR. Did that happen? No. Go down to your local Woolworths. Actually, you can't do that, because you're boycotting Woolworths! Go down to your local Coles or IGA and you'll find that the supermarket shelves are quite full. So, in contrast to what we've always heard from Senator Cash—saying that we'd go to the Dark Ages, that we'd have empty supermarket shelves—what have we actually seen as a result of the laws the Albanese government has changed when it comes to workers? We've seen higher wages, lower unemployment, lower industrial action and inflation coming down. Every single thing that Senator Cash has predicted, when it comes to IR changes, has been wrong. That is because Senator Cash and the coalition are driven by ideology rather than facts or delivering higher wages, lower unemployment, more secure work, lower industrial action and inflation that is falling. That is the Labor government's record and that is what we will do as a result of this legislation. On that basis, I move that the question be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 ( ):  The question is that the question now be put.  

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

 31 AYES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. 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. 26 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:24 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question before the chamber now is that the motion moved by Senator Cash to suspend be agreed to. Question negatived. 18:25 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator LAMBIE 250026 What a kick in the guts for Australian democracy today! What do you know? We're prepared to stay here all night and have this out, but, no, you want a shortcut here this evening. Here we are. Why don't you run us through all night? You want it over and done with. My hand's up. I've got plenty to say. There are plenty of speeches. We've got crap-all time this evening; let's be honest about that. You have guillotined this tomorrow. We've got all of two hours. These are some of the biggest IR moves we've made in years in this chamber. This is what you are doing: you are shutting down democracy. What a kick in the guts! Fair dinkum! Whatever happened to being a fair government over this side? Whatever happened to that? You've left small business and businesses out there hanging, and the debate should be taken up in this chamber. If it means we have to sit in here for 48 hours and do that until it's over, then that's how it should be done. But, no, only when it suits you do you want to do those long hours. It's absolutely disgraceful. PETITIONS 94 PETITIONS International Court of Justice 94 18:26 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition of over 32,000 signatures urging Australia to stand against Israel at the International Court of Justice. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 The precedence in the chamber is that party leaders take precedence, not that it goes one side or the other when a party leader is on their feet. I'm seeking leave to make a short statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 I took a decision to share the call across the chamber, and Senator Faruqi is seeking leave. I understand that you want to seek leave as well. Senator Faruqi, you sought leave to table a petition. Is leave granted? Leave granted. Senator FARUQI 250362 I table a petition of over 32,000 signatures urging Australia to stand against Israel in the International Court of Justice. BUSINESS 94 BUSINESS Rearrangement 94 18:29 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKENZIE 207825 What a farce this chamber has become, and so quickly, under the Labor government under Anthony Albanese—a chamber that for 124 years has actually sought to bring the diverse voices of Australians to the one place to prosecute ideas, to hold governments and executives to account on behalf of our very diverse population. Our chamber has always done that and taken it very seriously. These are significant industrial relations reforms—reforms that are so significant that businesses are up in arms about it. We've had a Senate inquiry whose findings we're unable to prosecute. We've got a truncated committee session tomorrow because the Labor Party are all about who's got the numbers and how brutally they can exercise those numbers at any given time. It is an absolute shame. (Time expired) BUDGET 94 BUDGET Proposed Expenditure 94 18:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table the following documents: Particulars of estimates proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2024 [Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024]. Particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2024 [Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024]. Particulars of proposed additional expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2024 [Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024]. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents. Leave granted. Senator WATT 245759 I move: That the documents, together with the final budget outcome 2022-23, be referred to committees for examination and report. Question agreed to. Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 95 18:31 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 I table portfolio additional estimates statements for 2023-24 for the Department of Parliamentary Services. Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 95 18:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table portfolio additional estimates statements for 2023-24 for portfolios and executive departments as listed on the Dynamic Red. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office. The list read as follow s— Estimates of proposed additional expenditure for 2023-24—Portfolio additional estimates statements—Portfolios and executive departments— Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio. Attorney-General's portfolio. Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio. Defence portfolio. Department of Veterans' Affairs. Education portfolio. Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio. Finance portfolio. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Health and Aged Care portfolio. Home Affairs portfolio. Industry, Science and Resources portfolio. Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts portfolio. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Social Services portfolio. Treasury portfolio. PRIME MINISTER OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA 95 PRIME MINISTER OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA Address to Parliament 95 18:32 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The President has received a message from the House of Representatives inviting senators to attend a meeting of the House on Thursday, 8 February 2024, for an address by the Hon. James Marape MP, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. COMMITTEES 95 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 95 Report 95 18:32 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2], together with accompanying documents. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 95 18:32 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present Delegated legislation monitor 1of 2024. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 96 Scrutiny Digest 96 18:33 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest2 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Education and Employment References Committee 96 Report 96 18:34 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I present the report of the Education and Employment References Committee on classroom disruption, together with accompanying documents, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. It gives me great pleasure to rise today and to speak on this report. It was a labour of love for this committee, and I do thank, indeed, the committee for their diligence in the way that they approached this. As I said, it was a real labour of love for the committee. It's taken more than a year to get to this point, and I want to place on the record my thanks to the deputy chair, Senator Tony Sheldon, and my fellow committee members for their input and valued contributions. This final report builds upon the findings of the interim report. The time we have taken for further analysis of the results indicates that there is a lot of room for improvement in Australian classrooms. Just for context, we extended the reporting date just to allow time for us to get data back from the OECD, who were reporting on the PISA results. They had delayed it because of COVID. They delayed their report, so we wanted to just make sure that we were getting the latest data to fit into this. On that, our results in maths, science and reading have been declining since 2015, but I do note that in more recent years this has stabilised, since our average 2022 results were about the same as they were in 2018. So it is reassuring to see that our 15-year-olds are scoring higher than the OECD average in these core subjects. However, this doesn't mask the fact that our results have been dropping over two decades. It's also a point to note that our standings are where they are partly because of the fact that other countries have gone backwards. We comparatively, over the COVID period, did better than other countries. We haven't necessarily improved, but we did do better than other countries, and that is worth noting. But we shouldn't allow it to give us any false sense of comfort, because there is an enormous amount of work that needs to be done. Maths results dropped 37 points since 2003, from 524 to 487; science fell 20 points, from 527 to 507; and reading is down 30 points, from 528 to 498, since 2000. This is equivalent to the loss of a whole school year over that period. Action is needed now to reverse the long-term declining trend. To that end, this final report recommends that the Senate continue to prioritise the issue by referring a targeted inquiry into the declining academic standards in Australia. There is a pressing need to ensure that we raise the academic standards and outcomes for all Australian students. This is their future at stake, after all. We need to emphasise our commitment to tackling this before the rot sets in for good, before we're past the point of no return. We owe our children more than that. We owe those tireless and dedicated saints, our wonderful teachers—we have the best teachers in the world—principals, educators and school administrators more than that. This is our turn to do our part to make the tough decisions that need to be made. What are the experiences of our teachers, principals and parents? What are the challenges that they're facing, and what do we need to do, from a policy perspective, to help them overcome these challenges? How can we show them that we have their back? The survey results from the OECD tell us, really, what we already know, and that is, of course, that our teachers are doing a terrific job. Our teachers are doing a great job, but they do need our support. They do need more support. Sixty-eight per cent of Australian students reported that in most maths lessons their teacher showed an interest in every student's learning. Seventy-seven per cent reported that the teacher went out of their way to give extra help to students who needed it. We know that our teachers are some of the most compassionate and dedicated in the world, and this data only confirms it. But the report also shows that they desperately need support in classrooms, and I know that this is a point that Senator Henderson, the shadow minister for education, has been making very passionately over her time since taking on this portfolio as she has discovered the needs across the country. The disciplinary climate in our classrooms is holding our students back from achieving at their highest potential. We have a situation where one in four Australian students reported that they could not work well in most or all lessons, because of the disruption that was occurring in classrooms. So we've got to do better than this. We're literally at the bottom of the pack—literally towards the bottom of the table. We need to do much better. A third of students aren't listening to what the teachers say. Almost half are getting distracted either by their own mobile phone device or by another student using a mobile phone device. I do acknowledge that all states either have enacted a mobile phone ban or are in the process of rolling out that policy. That is a good step, and I support all governments of all jurisdictions taking that step and every school for enforcing it. It is a good step in the right direction, because we know that mobile devices have enormous potential to aid students but they also have significant potential to inappropriately distract them in class. We need to make sure that teachers are supported in being able to do that. But I digress. Australia was ranked 69 out of 76 countries in 2018. Even though PISA have changed the way that they present this data, the results aren't ideal. We are now ranked—listen to this—33 out of 37 OECD countries. To have a higher number is a bad thing. To be a good country, you have to be No. 1. So, at 33 out of 37, we are falling way behind and we are scoring well below the OECD average. Arresting this decline should be the top priority of this government. There is a lot of big talk coming from the government on school funding, but that priority should be to direct funds where they can be of most use. This includes promoting evidence based methods of teaching, like those in the AERO engaged classrooms report and those that we've recommended in the interim report. The first tranche was released around the same time as the PISA report last year. These good resources that have been developed are backed by the research, and we know that they work. We have several schools across Australia already using these methods and they are achieving outstanding results. Rolling it out quickly and thoroughly across the country is an important and good thing. This isn't really even going to cost any more money. It is just better using the resources that we have now. In fact, they are available on the website right now. We have seen these methods in action. We have seen them produce very real and outstanding results. The emphasis should be on a whole-school approach, a whole-school commitment to behaviour. The interim report, which we tabled late last year, recommended the introduction of a behaviour curriculum. That would set out the expected behaviours and values of a school and a list of key habits and routines, not a list of prohibited behaviours. It's all about making schools and classrooms safe, predictable and equitable places for all students to learn. We have to set our students up for success. I have said it before and I will say it again. We need the political willpower to follow through with what the evidence is telling us. Nearly half of Australian students achieve the national proficiency standards—51 per cent in maths, 58 per cent in science and 57 per cent in reading. So the status quo isn't working. We know that evidence based methods and pedagogy like explicit instruction and formative assessment which are based on the science of learning help students learn and retain information. We should mandate these methods. If we know that teachers are crying out for more support then we need to ensure that they are equipped with the skills and the strategies that they will rely on in the classroom by reforming initial teacher education courses at our universities. We need to know that we are going to get those academic outcomes. This won't be an easy process. There is no silver bullet that will solve all the problems in our classrooms. But isn't it the definition of insanity to just keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Something has to give. I will finish with this. We must remember that the greatest cruelty that we could show to our children is to rob them of their futures by doing nothing and allowing this problem to escalate by reducing learning time in class and ultimately leaving them illiterate and innumerate. 18:44 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to welcome the tabling of the final report by the Senate Education and Employment References Committee on increasing disruption in Australian schools. Chaired most capably by Senator O'Sullivan, this very important inquiry has offered critical insights into how spiralling behaviour in and out of the classroom is impacting on the learning outcomes of Australian students. Unruly, disruptive and even violent behaviour is seriously impacting on the ability of teachers to do their job and is the leading cause of teachers leaving the profession in droves. With some of the unruliest classrooms in the world, it's no wonder academic standards are declining. Despite a 60 per cent increase in school funding over two decades, we are seeing that trajectory of declining school standards, with one in three Australian students failing NAPLAN, and, as we've heard from Senator O'Sullivan, a long-term decline in our international results. Students deserve better, teachers deserve better and Australian parents deserve better. So dire are our school standards, despite the best efforts of teachers—and I reiterate that—that half of all year 10 students tested under the Program for International Student Assessment failed to meet minimum expectations in maths, with 43 per cent failing to meet the grade in reading and 42 per cent in science. As Senator O'Sullivan said, the average 15-year-old is now one whole year behind in his or her learning compared to 20 years ago. That is a shocking outcome. Students cannot learn in a disruptive environment, and hardworking teachers must have the training and the resources to excel in the classroom, including the resources and the training to manage poor classroom behaviour. On that score, teaching courses offered by Australian universities—not all, but on the whole—leave new teachers unprepared and lacking knowledge in evidence based teaching methods for the science of learning—so our universities must bear a big part of the blame. Here's the irony: university academics training student teachers don't need a teaching degree to do their job. I strongly endorse the committee's recommendation in its final report to hold an inquiry into declining academic standards, including examining students' proficiency in literacy and numeracy and the experience of principals, teachers and parents in meeting the challenge of raising academic standards. It is regrettable that, since the interim report was handed down late last year, we have seen so little action from this government and the education minister, Jason Clare, on the recommendations of the interim report. They include fast-tracking the delivery of core curriculum in every university teaching course, including comprehensive behaviour management training. Yes, the government recognises, like we did when we were last in government, that universities are not meeting the grade, but this minister is letting universities off the hook by giving them so much time to get their act together, so we need those reforms fast-tracked. We need, as was recommended, a national behaviour survey of Australian schools to support evidence based measures to combat classroom disruption; more on-the-job experience for student teachers; a behaviour curriculum which incorporates into the Australian curriculum the explicit instruction of expected behaviours at school; the adoption of evidence based teaching methods in every Australian school to support optimal student engagement and learning; and the abolition of open classrooms—which has been announced in New South Wales but not in any other state or territory—which make behaviour management more difficult. The coalition is interested in these reforms—the things that work, the things that the evidence shows will turn around these declining school standards. Minister Clare has spent almost two years talking a very big game on the next National School Reform Agreement, but we have seen no national agreement and very little in the way of reform. Yes, it is true that there has been a ban on mobile phones in classrooms—I have to say, led by some of the states rather than the minister, but we welcome that very important change in classrooms—but we've not seen anything else that we know will work and that we know will give each young Australian every opportunity to reach his or her best potential. In fact, this minister was comprehensively rolled by the states and territories at the last education ministers meeting. Within 24 hours of making this big announcement, the so-called $3 billion for public schools—what a joke that was!—this hopeless minister was absolutely, comprehensively rolled when five states announced there was no deal at all, leaving uncertainty, division and a complete and utter funding shambles. It was absolutely clear that this minister had not done his homework. This minister had not done the hard yards with the states and territories to get them over the line. Australians need an education minister who is a tough operator, not a smooth talker. Let's not forget that on the minister's watch, on the Albanese government's watch, we now have a full-blown teacher shortage crisis with no immediate solutions from this government. We have seen no interest at all from this government in improving the national curriculum. The minister will not even mention the words 'explicit instruction', when we know from the evidence that explicit instruction is a core part of what will help to turn around our declining school standards. Perhaps it's because the Australian Education Union doesn't agree with these teaching methods—incredible. In our cost-of-living inquiry, we heard the Australian Education Union again confirm on the record that it doesn't subscribe to the evidence of what we know works in Australian classrooms. They don't believe it. They think it's dangerous, which is contrary even to the very good work of the Australian Education Research Organisation. That just goes to show how out of touch the Australian Education Union is. Frankly, there is no value at all in anyone listening to what this union has to say when it comes to doing what is right for young Australians. As Senator O'Sullivan has reiterated, the coalition has been crying out for the government to take the necessary steps and make the necessary reforms to turn around our declining academic standards, including to mandate explicit instruction and other proven teaching methods in every Australian classroom. In saying that, I acknowledge that there are many schools and a number of school systems that are doing a very good job embracing evidence based teaching methods. One of the great visits that we had when I joined the inquiry's Sydney hearings was to the Marsden Road Public School. We again met the wonderful principal, Manisha Gazula, and saw what she is doing in a highly disadvantaged area of Sydney. With no extra funding, she's embracing evidence based teaching, and her NAPLAN results are going through the roof. What can be done when you have the vision and the determination and you embrace the science of learning is incredible. I reiterate my endorsement for this very important recommendation in the final report that has been tabled today, and I say this hopelessly dishonest government needs to do better and this minister needs to do far better than he is doing at the moment. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 99 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 99

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023

Second Reading 99 18:53 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales No evidence is required for unions to exercise their right-of-entry powers. The National Farmers Federation is right to be concerned about the new rights of entry without notice, which would allow union reps to enter farms unannounced. For most farmers, their workplace is also their family home. The farm is their kids' backyard. Union reps should not be able to waltz in unannounced, and this begs the question: what does this mean for small businesses that operate out of their owners' family homes? Does this bill give union representatives the right to enter a family home purely based on a fear that an underpayment has occurred? No-one knows the answer to this question. Perhaps we will have to rely on the Prime Minister and his word as his bond if he tells us that it's not the case. How on earth does this provision balance the rights and liberties of employers and employees fairly? Running a small business in this country is not a crime. It is something that should be celebrated. It is the embodiment of our entrepreneurial spirit and our aspiration as Australians. Instead, we have a government and a minister that, with the support of Senator David Pocock, have allowed the dreams and aspirations of hardworking Australians to be crushed. It is clear that around $100 million in donations made by union bosses over the past decade have ensured that the Australian Labor Party has sided with them rather than with the Australian public, which is where its obligations should lie. One of the most egregious parts of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 is the introduction of a new definition of casual employment that will replace the existing definition. 18:56 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. Australia must have a fair and equitable workplace relations system that upholds the rights of all working people. We need a system that appropriately protects workers in a changing world. This bill is a modest but important step in the right direction. We in the Greens support this bill, given the important changes that have been agreed. Minimum standards for employee-like workers in our gig economy are important. Standing up for casual workers, putting an end to sham contracting and strengthening union entry rights for suspected worker underpayment are all important. In particular, the Greens support better protections for gig workers and a stronger pathway to permanency for casuals. These are meaningful measures that are long overdue, but much more needs to be done. The Greens are proud to have already passed an amendment to the first closing loopholes bill that ensures that superannuation theft is now a criminal offence alongside wage theft. Super theft is a form of wage theft, and it will now be treated as that under workplace law. The Greens have also amended the bill before us, with improvements to intractable bargaining provisions and protections for casual workers at schools and universities. But the bill lacks a key improvement, which is the right for workers to disconnect. As we all know, Senate committees are powerful resources for gathering evidence from stakeholders across our country. We heard both during the inquiry for this bill and in the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care that workers are crying out for a better, fairer workplace relations system. Over the last couple of decades, the quality and security of jobs in Australia has been severely eroded. One-third of workers are now employed in insecure jobs as casuals and independent contractors—so-called—in labour hire and gig work. All of those are on the rise and now very significant in our labour market. Job insecurity brings with it unpredictable working times and hours and takes a toll on our health, our household budgets and our capacity to plan for the future. This bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards and offer increased dispute resolution for employee-like digital platform workers. Our employee-like workers or gig workers are still just that. They are workers. They're entitled to minimum protections, including a minimum wage, paid sick and holiday leave and a safe workplace. The committee inquiry into this bill heard that injury among gig workers is endemic, especially for those who deliver our food and our parcels. The evidence is very confronting. Seventy-three per cent of food delivery workers fear serious injury or death while at work, and no less than one-third have been seriously hurt or injured. Tragically, at least 13 delivery drivers have died on Australian roads in recent years. This is unacceptable in a civilised country. Gig workers are often immigrant workers, who are among the most powerless in our workplaces. I've heard testimony from family members talking about the loss of their children, of their nephews and of their kids in unsafe working conditions. These are workers who have paid for their jobs with their lives in delivering our food and our goods. It's not good enough, and we have to do much better. We cannot run our labour market on the lives of those gig workers. We cannot have them doing the work, systematically, year after year, on wages that are so far below the minimum wage. Big corporations such as Uber and DoorDash have exploited their workers and profited at their expense for far too long by taking advantage of loopholes in Australia's workplace relations law. Well, no longer. Gig workers deserve better, and it's so important to see real change in this very significant area of workplace relations. This bill will also make changes to the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for casual workers. It does this by strengthening the conversion pathways for casuals whose jobs resemble permanent jobs and are casual in name only. These are positive developments. However, we know that they're not enough. We know that Australia has one of the highest rates of insecure employment in the OECD. A third of our workforce are now insecure and working in precarious work. Too many casual workers lack knowledge of what hours and pay they will have tomorrow or next week. Too many work regular hours year after year on low pay, even including the casual loading, and don't get paid holidays or paid sick leave in real terms. We know that the casual loading does not compensate for job insecurity or a lack of leave entitlements. It barely compensates for the insecurity alone of your job in terms of what it does to your life and to your earnings. In addition to the measures in this bill, there are other ways in which we can improve working conditions for our casual workers in this country. We've previously called on the government to establish a right for all workers, including casual workers, to have pro rata sick leave and holiday leave. We also need incentives for businesses to create ongoing, secure positions rather than relying upon precarious forms of employment. The Australian Greens support greater protections for casual workers, and this is why we've supported amendments in the lower house to protect teachers and university lecturers from a double-barrelled disadvantage. The problem is that many people in these organisations and workplaces have been classified as casuals or put on short-term arrangements and, come the end of the semester, find themselves out of a job and out of an income. They're often employed the year or the semester afterwards, providing their skills continuously but with broken employment contracts that make it really hard to put together a life and to do the work that so many of them love. Teachers and lecturers on those fixed-term contracts will now be excluded from the definition of a casual worker, as supported by the National Tertiary Education Union. Workers in schools and unis who are not ongoing employees will either be classified as fixed-term employees or casuals—not both. In reality, this will mean increased job security for thousands of staff in our schools and in our universities. It is very relevant to the matters we were just discussing around the quality of education in this country. The Greens have also fought to improve intractable bargaining provisions that were introduced in the secure jobs, better pay act. In this act, the government introduced provisions for the Fair Work Commission to intervene in bargaining that has reached an impasse. The purpose was to prevent protracted bargaining disputes, by giving the Fair Work Commission the power of compulsory arbitration. This is a good provision, but it's had some unintended consequences. Concerns have been raised that employers have been advised to wait out negotiating periods in order to get a backdoor result by going through the commission and ratcheting down conditions. Our amendment ensures that, if you end up in arbitration, you can't go backwards. It maintains the spirit of the underlying principle of the act, which is that agreements remain in place until a new one is negotiated. It fixes a loophole in Australia's arbitration system, protects workers and puts integrity back into the bargaining process. I now turn to the issue of the right to disconnect, which has generated a lot of lively discussion in recent days in our media and in many of our communities. Workers are no longer able to knock off when they clock off. Too many workers have their leisure time and their family time interrupted by calls and contact from their workplace, which results in them working unpaid working time. They feel obliged to do it, and they pay a price, as do their families. Time is our most basic human resource. It is our life. It's the only true resource we have, and Australian workers give away, on average, five hours and 20 minutes of unpaid work a week. This is seven weeks of unpaid time every year. The average worker loses over $11,000 in unpaid overtime, and this cannot be allowed to continue. We Greens have long called for a right to disconnect. We were pleased to see that the Senate inquiry report for this bill recommended a legislated right to disconnect in the Fair Work Act, supporting the development of clear expectations about contact and availability in workplaces and after your paid working hours are finished. The issue of unpaid overtime and of what many people call 'availability creep' is persistent and systemic. It affects workers in all industries and occupations—public and private, all kinds of work—and in organisations both big and small. The proliferation of communication technology in our working lives means that workers are now always contactable. Seventy per cent of workers in Australia regularly perform work outside their agreed working hours. Work is encroaching into every facet of workers' lives, and the workplace relations system has been inadequate at protecting a work-life balance. I've written a few books about this and done a lot of research and interviewed many, many workers. My first book, called The Work/Life Collision, was published in 2003. That's 21 years ago, and here were are playing catch-up to give workers some protection around the actual boundaries of their working day. There's a lot of Rolls-Royce-grade research about this problem. When workers aren't able to find time for themselves and those they care for outside of work, it leads to poor sleep, to stress, to burnout and to degraded relationships with friends and family, and it imposes a very significant mental health burden on our country. We need a right to disconnect, and this is not a fringe, radical or wacky idea. It is tested. It can be created in a simple way, in a clear way that workers and their employers and communities will understand and benefit from. There are currently more than 56 enterprise agreements across Australia that have created a right-to-disconnect clause in their bargaining for their workplaces. These agreements cover workers in our schools, in our banks, in newspapers, in local government, in universities, in transport and in logistics. The list goes on. In the inquiry around this bill we heard evidence from workers who are crying out for a right to disconnect in their workplace. We heard from teachers, such as Ms Butler and Ms Yewdall, that as a direct consequence of being unable to disconnect from their work they are burnt out and considering leaving their professions. We lose them, we lose their skills and we pay a price for that in our labour market, especially at a time when their skills are so sorely needed. We are losing our best and brightest workers because there is no limit that they can currently place around their job in terms of being contacted outside their paid working hours. Almost 20 other countries have faced up to this problem and created a right to disconnect. Enshrining this right in Australia at the federal level is simply playing catch-up with the rest of the world. Australia has been falling behind. I'm proud of the work of our party and the great deal of research and consultation that we've engaged in to create this amendment. Some employers say it's unnecessary to legislate this right. They don't understand how much women's lives and the lives of carers and workers have changed and are affected by the encroachment of work. Evey time any positive workplace relations reform is attempted in this country we hear the same argument over and over again. I've been listening to it for 40 years: the sky is falling; nothing will ever be the same. Well, I can assure you, the sky is not falling. What we propose is a reasonable, flexible, workable right—one that is desperately overdue. With this change, the right to disconnect, we are going to pull our labour law into the 21st century and help it deal with the changing technologies that shape so much of our lives and our jobs, and we need that new 21st century labour law to respond to the changing circumstances of people's lives. The final report of the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care, which I chaired, agreed to by both Labor and the Greens, recommended a whole-of-government approach to the challenge of work and family across our country. The majority report pushed for a range of measures, including a right to disconnect. There's still a lot more for us to do in our workplace relations systems. Workers face problems on multiple fronts: intrusive technology, insecure work, lagging real wages, gender inequality and wage theft, all of which detract from the quality of work and personal lives. Many employers and workplaces are already dealing with things like the need to disconnect. They are in conversation with each other. They find practical ways to do it. The right to disconnect and the amendments that we are proposing and want to see will enable those in workplaces where their power is limited and weak, giving them a first brick to back them up when they ask for control over their working time. The key purpose of a workplace relations system must be to protect the interests of working people fairly from the disproportionate power of employers, big contractors and monopolies. The Australian Greens have already secured amendments in the closing loopholes bill that will improve working conditions, and we urge the parliament to support our amendment and to legislate a right for workers to disconnect. It is good for workers, good for their kids, good for their mental health, good for our communities and also good for our productivity. 19:10 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to speak today on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. Last year the government did close some loopholes that undercut pay and conditions for Australian workers. We did so by criminalising wage theft and stopping the underpayment of workers through the use of labour hire. This bill continues with that work, closing other loopholes that undermine the pay and conditions of Australian workers. This bill is designed to protect, defend and support Australian workers by properly defining 'casual work' so casuals aren't being exploited and by making sure that gig workers in our economy aren't being ripped off. We know that the gig economy has been both shaping and responding to our changing world, and in many respects, in its reshaping of our economy, it has led to benefits for consumers. But there is a price for this convenience. As I have reiterated over and over again in this chamber, the price we have paid for it has been far too high, and far too much of that burden has been paid by the workers in this industry. I cannot fathom how consumer convenience has been allowed in our country to come before worker safety, to come before everything that has been fought for in our industrial system for decades and decades—the sorts of things that my grandfather, as a unionist, fought for in our country, that my mother, as a unionist, fought for in our country: the industrial rights and principles that we believe in. It has led to a race to the bottom. Workers have felt that. Good employers have seen that. The Transport Workers Union and other unions have rallied against it. I have been fighting it, as have so many of my Labor colleagues. Now we have an opportunity to address it. What has been happening in our gig economy is not okay. What we've seen in the gig economy hasn't just been a revolution of convenience; it has been a race to the bottom. It has been a systematic overwrite of the hard-fought-for industrial rights of Australian workers in a way that is bad for workers, bad for good employers and bad for Australia. That's why this bill is so important. The bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to make orders for minimum standards for new forms of work such as gig work. I cannot believe it has to be said, but in the nature of this debate it does. Just because someone is working in the gig economy, it shouldn't mean they're not entitled to a minimum wage. It shouldn't mean they're not entitled to minimum standards. That is crazy. But we should also be clear about what this bill is not. We're not trying to turn people into employees when they don't want to be employees. Some gig workers want flexibility, and we get that. That's still possible. But minimum standards matter too. In my view, these aren't radical changes, but they're necessary changes. They are the right changes. We're also taking action in the trucking industry. We want it to be safe, sustainable and viable. As part of this legislation, the Fair Work Commission has the power to set fair and minimum standards for road transport. These sorts of measures in the legislation we're talking about will save lives, not just of those in the industry but of everyone on our roads. The Without trucks Australia stops Senate report starkly illustrated the deadly impact of cost-cutting and unrealistic deadlines, and just yesterday the Transport Workers Union held a vigil in Parliament House for the 235 people killed in transport related crashes in 2023. That is unacceptable. How can we not take action when that information is before us? I want to acknowledge everyone who has fought for this change, including those in South Australia. I notice him in the gallery, so it's handy that you're here, Frank. I want to acknowledge Frank Black, who's been on the front line of this fight. I've seen him at rally after rally. I also want to acknowledge Ian Smith and Sam McIntosh, and I have to make mention of our dear friend the late senator Alex Gallacher. When it comes to casual work, the new definition of casual employment will clarify what was always intended with casual work—that, if you are working regular and predictable hours and you want to be permanent, you get a pathway to that. Our employee-like reforms simply require workers to have some minimum standards benchmarked against existing award rates when they are working in a way which is similar to employees. We know there's a direct link between low rates of pay and safety. We know that. We've seen it in the gig economy, where workers take risks to get more work—workers who are often struggling to make ends meet. We have seen that on our roads, and we have seen it with tragic effect. I have sat in committee rooms in this building and heard time after time stories from families who have lost loved ones on the road or lost loved ones in the gig economy. They are families who have come to this building to share their pain with us and who have opened their hearts and spilled out their trauma to senators from across the aisle in the hope that the death of their loved ones wouldn't be vain, in the hope that the traumas and pains that they experienced would not be in vain and in the hope that they could change the law and change the country. Well, that's what we're doing with this bill. Their stories, their efforts, their bravery and their courage in coming here won't be in vain. There are loopholes here we must close, and I am proudly, proudly supporting the bill before us. A 2023 McKell survey of over 1,000 gig workers showed that workers are being pressured to work long hours, work during peak times and rush. On top of that, they're being threatened with low pay and manipulated with the fear of deactivation instead of seeing the flexibility that they were promised. These aren't just statistics in a survey; these are real people. This is their reality as they go to work each day across our country. These are people like Simerdeep, a gig worker from Adelaide who worked in the gig economy for over a year. He wanted the flexibility it offered him. He took up a role with Amazon Flex, and he was failed on his very first shift. He was failed by being given an impossible task and failed by not being given the support and training he needed to do his job safely. In thanks he was underpaid in every sense of the word for the work he did. That's not okay. Neither is Mugdha's experience. I met Mugdha today. She bravely came to the parliament to talk about her experience as a food delivery rider. On her very first shift, Mugdha was hit by a car, thrown off her scooter and ended up unconscious on the road. She was injured on the entire left side of her body and her lower back. She didn't have access to workers compensation. With no access to support, she had to go back to work. She had to go back and get on that bike when she wasn't ready. Worse still, she had to work longer hours trying to make up the time she had taken off. She came here to tell us her story because she doesn't want to see another worker experience that. She was brave in coming here, as so many people have been brave in coming here and telling their stories to us, and I know they've invited every senator in this chamber to listen to them. Davis, as well, is a gig worker in Melbourne. He told me he gets paid as little as $6.50 an hour. That is happening in our country at the moment. That is not acceptable. That needs to change. These are stories of real people working in an industry which has been allowed to flourish at the expense of their rights and at the expense of the things we have fought for in this country. We have let consumer convenience matter more than them. That's not okay. These stories are not okay. They are not consistent with what our national story should be in Australia, and that's why we need to close these loopholes. I am proud of this bill because the gig economy has created a race to the bottom. It has sent us backwards on the hard-fought-for industrial rights that are the foundation of modern Australia, and the Australian workers across our country deserve better than this. Our country is better than this. This is the land of the fair go. It is what we as Australians define ourselves as being. But there are workers out there who have not had a fair go. They've had less-than-fair conditions and less-than-fair compensation for their efforts, and they haven't been safe. In my very first speech to the Senate, I stood here and called this out. I said that the gig economy, for all its conveniences, is threatening the basic rights of workers, including to fair pay. I get that consumer convenience matters. I understand it's important. But we always have had to ask ourselves how much we are willing to pay for it, because that sacrifice has not been made by us; it's been made by people out there working in this gig economy who have paid far too high a price. I know the coalition have opposed these reforms every step of the way, and I know that at the end of this debate it will be no different. But, with everything you know about what is happening in this economy and what is happening with employees on our roads, how can that be the case? I commend this bill to the Senate. 19:21 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Before I start my remarks, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President: I understand Frank Black is in the gallery. I had occasion—it might have been one or two years ago—to support Senator Sheldon in relation to the fact that the ACCC had been targeting Mr Black, as I understood. I read some of the correspondence in relation to what at the time I referred to as his exhortation or plea for truck owner-drivers to make sure that they didn't undercut each other to death with their rates in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. I was very pleased to do that, and I was very pleased to support Senator Sheldon in his efforts in that regard. I pay my compliments to all those who've advocated for the rights of truck owner-drivers and other Australian workers, especially vulnerable workers. I do that at the commencement of my contribution in this debate. I admire Senator Smith's passion, her integrity and her commitment with respect to this matter. However, there are deep concerns we have in relation to this legislation, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. As is so often the case when there are things that need to be addressed in society and issues of legitimate concern to anyone of good faith and good heart, there's concern that, when the regulatory pendulum swings too far and too hard, good people who are doing the right thing are damaged. A lot of those good people aren't the cross-border multinationals with billions and billions of dollars of capital; they're small businesses. The over two million small businesses in this country, which employ more than 40 per cent of employed Australians, are the ones who are going to be left to grapple with this legislation. They're the ones I'm concerned about—the small businesses who don't have an internal legal department with hordes and hordes of lawyers ready to support them and don't have multiple billions of dollars of capital but who are just hanging on by their fingernails. I have advocated for a number of these small businesses to the Australian Taxation Office and to other people in relation to what they're going through. My concern is for those small businesses and what this legislation is going to impose upon those small businesses. I want to give you just one example of how I think this legislation is going far too far. I think the issues that are being identified could have been addressed without going this far. I want to give you one example of that, and that is the definition of 'casual employee' under the legislation. This is what we are imposing on small businesses across Australia—including the ACT, I say to Senator David Pocock, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. This is the definition we are imposing upon small businesses. It takes 25 steps. I counted them. I've been a practising lawyer for over 25 years. I read this legislation word for word—25 steps of mental gymnastics for a small-business person who's hanging on by their fingernails to try to determine whether or not one of their employees is a casual employee. I will walk through them for you, because this is what we're imposing. There is all the lovely rhetoric, all the wonderful words, but, at the end of the day, over two million small businesses—I'm not talking about the BHPs or Rio Tintos—hanging on by their fingernails are going to be left to try to work out what the hell this means. If I as a lawyer who has practised in Australia, Papua New Guinea, Chile and Laos—I've navigated all sorts of employment situations—have trouble working it out, what hope have they got? This is what you are imposing on them—25 steps. Step 1 is in section 15A on the meaning of 'casual employee'. The general rule is: (a) the employment relationship is characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work … There are 18 words we've identified in step 1. What do they mean? Now we've got to go from the first limb of the general rule to the indicia, the indications that apply to the purposes of the general rule under 15A(2). There, in the first paragraph, we've got to consider: … the basis of the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the employment relationship … That is a bit of tautology, isn't it—the 'real substance'? I'm not sure why we are saying 'real substance' instead of 'substance'. I would have thought something is either a substance or not. It's a bit like a round circle. Then we are saying 'the practical reality'. How that is that different from 'real substance'? Then we have to consider the 'true nature' of the employment relationship. I'm not sure what that's intended to add. That's our second step. We have another 23 to go. This is for someone hanging on by their fingernails as a small-business person in this country. So in step 2 we've got to consider real substance, practical reality and true nature and: (b) on the basis that a firm advance commitment can be in the form of the contract of employment … So I can look in my contract of employment. That's easy. That's step No. 3. But, if it isn't in my contract of employment, I've got to go to step 4, which is these words: … irrespective of the terms of that contract, in the form of a mutual understanding or expectation between the employer and employee not rising to the level of a term of that contract (or to a variation of any such term) … So it's something nebulous. It's an understanding or it's an expectation. I'm not sure what the understanding or expectation is. Senator Pocock might be able to go down to his local cafe and explain to the owner of the business how to interpret this clause. Then, once we've worked out whether or not we've got something that is maybe an understanding or an expectation, in step 5 we then have to go to the explanatory notes. We've gone through the first limb of the general rule. We then went onto the second indicator clause. Now there is an explanatory clause in 15A(3). It says: (a) for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b)— and (2)(b) is the clause that talks about the mutual understanding or expectation— a mutual understanding or expectation may be inferred from conduct of the employer and employee after entering into the contract of employment or from how the contract is performed … I'm not really sure what that means. We're only up to step 5. We've got another 20 steps to go. This is what your local cafe owner is going to have to go through. Step 6, we're now returning to the indicia of the general rule, the first limb of the general rule: (c) having regard to, but not limited to, the following considerations (which indicate the presence, rather than an absence, of such a commitment)— what a word salad that is! Step 7: (i) whether there is an inability of the employer to elect to offer work or an inability of the employee to elect to accept or reject work (and whether this occurs in practice); Step 8: (ii) whether, having regard to the nature of the employer's enterprise, it is reasonably likely— I always love that term, 'reasonably likely'— that there will be future availability of continuing work— well, I've got to tell you, the small businesses I talk to are hanging on. They're not sure if they're going to survive— in that enterprise of the kind usually performed by the employee; So there are about six or so elements in that step, and that's only step 8. Step 9: (iii) whether there are full-time employees or part-time employees performing the same kind of work in the employer's enterprise that is usually performed by the employee; Step 10, we have to consider: (iv) whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee. Step 10 is one of my favourites, actually, because 'whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee' actually has an explanatory note under it that says: A regular pattern of work does not of itself indicate a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. An employee who has a regular pattern of work may still be a casual employee if there is no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. I'm not really sure what that adds—but, hang on, my next customer has come. I have to try and deal with my customer as well as finish step 11. But, hang on, I've got to now go to step 12 because this is the third limb of the test that's telling me what a regular pattern of work is. We've got section 15A(2)(c)(iv) and then the explanatory note, but then I've got to go to section 15A(3)(c). Senator Pocock, you can explain to the small businesses in Canberra what this means: (c) a pattern of work is regular for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(c)(iv) even if it is not absolutely uniform— If it's not 'absolutely uniform'. If it's a little bit uniform—I don't know what that means— and includes some fluctuation or variation over time (including for reasonable absences such as for illness, injury or recreation). Okay. That's step 12. I've then got to go to step 13, which tells me that, when I'm considering all those factors which I considered under steps 6 to 11, I can't consider any of them to be determinative. They don't all have to be met. And, in fact, there could be others as well, so it's open-ended. That's step 13. I'm now up to step 14. I have to go back to the general rules. So we've gone on a journey from the general rule, to the indicia, through to the explanatory clause dealing with the indicia, but I've only dealt with the first limb of the general rule, and that's taken me 13 steps. So now I'm up to step 14. Small businesses in Canberra, ring Senator Pocock. He'll explain it to you. Step 14: (b) the employee would be entitled to a casual loading— Would be entitled if they were a casual. It's a bit circular. I'll call it a round circle in the spirit of the tautologist nature of the legislation— or a specific rate of pay for casual employees under the terms of a fair work instrument if the employee were a casual employee— that's step 15. Step 16: … or the employee is entitled to such a loading or rate of pay under the contract of employment. Then we have another one of these useful notes, step 17: An employee who commences employment as a casual employee remains a casual employee until the occurrence of a specified event (see subsection (5)). That takes us to a new subsection—subsection (5)—which has four elements to it, which are step 18, step 19, step 20 and step 21. Then we're up to— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator SCARR 282997 Hang on. There are exceptions to the general rule. We've got the general rule, the indicia to the general rule, the explanatory clauses of the general rule and then exceptions to the general rule. They are step 22 and step 23. But, even better, there's an explanatory note to the exceptions to the general rule—that's step 24. And our last step is an exception to the explanatory note to the exception to the general rule after you've applied the explanatory clause and the indicia in trying to apply the general rule. An opposition senator: It's simple! Senator SCARR 282997 It's simple! Hell, I'll make a copy for my next customer! That's what you're imposing upon more than two million small businesses. It's taken me three hours today to work that out. That's what you're imposing on Australian small businesses, including all those small businesses in the ACT. Senator Pocock, I'll give you a tutorial and you can help explain it to them. 19:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. In doing that, I will illustrate why this bill is a sham that does not protect workers like the name implies. Nothing in this bill will fix the absolute scandal that One Nation has uncovered. The Labor government is giving more power to union bosses, which is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. As I will explain, union bosses are the ones that have been ripping off workers, and the government regulator, the Fair Work Commission, has endorsed it. I challenge anyone to explain to me in detail how the closing loopholes No. 2 bill will fix the cases I'm about to explain. An independent report details the largest wage theft scandal Australia has ever seen. Coalmine workers have each had tens of thousands of dollars stolen from them every year. Labour hire companies, union bosses and governments have been covering it up for a decade or more. The culprits are labour hire companies supplying casual workers to some Central Queensland and Hunter Valley coalmines. The CFMEU—the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union—enabled and supported the wage theft. The Fair Work Commission signed off and endorsed the enterprise agreements, enabling the wage theft. One Nation commissioned an independent analysis which shows that hardworking, casual coalminers are each being shafted on 2023 pay rates by an average of around $33,000 every year. This is systemic wage theft resulting from collusion between labour hire companies—including major foreign multinationals—the CFMEU and the Fair Work Commission. My grave and disturbing allegations are based on solid facts and hard data. A quirk in the Black Coal Mining Industry Award makes this scam possible. Under that award it's illegal for mine employers to have casual employees. Yet, if casuals were legal, everyone in Australia knows that the employer would have to pay casuals 25 per cent more than the award full-time rate, as a 25 per cent casual loading for loss of basic entitlements like leave, sick leave and others. While the award prohibits casuals, labour hire companies—with the CFMEU—created enterprise agreements to employ casuals without any loading. The CFMEU negotiated, approved or sought to become a party to these agreements. The closing loopholes No. 2 bill claims that all of these problems in industrial relations can be solved if we get the union bosses more involved and give them more power. What is the use of giving the CFMEU bosses more power when they negotiated and approved agreements that have ripped off casual workers for more than a decade? The Fair Work Commission should be policing and rejecting these agreements, yet it approved them. The rates under the agreements were less than the award with a 25 per cent loading. This means that the enterprise agreements are paying much less than what should be paid under the award if it allowed casuals. Some casuals were paid even less than the full-time award through technical legal trickery. All parties claim these agreements are legal, yet everyone knows a casual gets a 25 per cent loading on the hourly rate of a full-time worker. Paying them any less is wage theft. It appears that, once the Fair Work Commission approves an enterprise agreement that pays less than what should be paid under the award, the underpayment then becomes legal. Yet One Nation is awake. All Australians deserve honest pay for an honest day's work. We have spent nearly five years investigating wage theft. Nothing in this bill will fix up the absolute scandal One Nation has uncovered. Tonight I launch our major report detailing the extent of the wage theft scam. In 2019, after the CFMEU brushed off many years of casual coalminers' complaints, the miners brought their underpayment complaints to us in One Nation. We took action. I've been holding the Fair Work Commission accountable for nearly five years. We asked the Fair Work Commission to provide their copy of the better-off-overall test—the BOOT—they've done on relevant enterprise agreements. The BOOT is supposed to be a safety net that rejects underpaying agreements and protects workers from underpayment. Yet the commission handed us no documents. There are no spreadsheets, no tables comparing conditions and benefits and no real assurance that they'd properly weighed it up. The response was along the lines of, 'Trust us; it passes.' The CFMEU has been signing off on dodgy agreements for more than a decade, and the Fair Work Commission is either asleep at the wheel or complicit. Either way, both enable or are responsible for massive wage theft. Last year we raised this issue with the Fair Work Ombudsman and with Minister Burke and his department. Responses from all three have been like that of the Fair Work Commission. 'Trust us,' they say, yet they provide no hard evidence. One Nation then commissioned independent research, with the results in the report. The first part presents the facts of coalmining casual work patterns. It marries those patterns against what the award would require if casual employment were possible under the award. The second part exposes how this scam has been allowed to continue in breach of proper, commonsense application of the law. The report details that coalminers are required to work any time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, close to a 44-hour week—Saturdays, Sundays, public holidays, days and nights. It's long, hard work that can be dangerous. The report shows that, according to the award, for example, a full-time mine worker doing 12-hour shifts will earn about $120,849 per year or $53.84 an hour. Taking what a full-time mine worker should earn under the award and adding a casual loading, a casual mine worker doing the same hours should earn $151,061 a year, or a flat rate of $66.40 an hour, regardless of hours worked. The independent analysis One Nation commissioned looked in detail at mine workers' hourly rates under the five most common enterprise agreements covering casuals in coalmining. We found that none of the enterprise agreements were paying casual workers anywhere near the $66.40 an hour they should be receiving. Some were even paying casuals less than the hourly rate a full-time worker gets under the award. The fact that a casual worker could be paid less than the hourly rate of a full-time worker under some of the agreements should have set of alarm bells at the Fair Work Commission. Every single enterprise agreement—all five—has the CFMEU's fingerprints on it, and the Fair Work Commission signed off every single agreement. The research assessed five of the major enterprise agreements in consultation with independent analysis, lawyers and coalminers. Let's go through them. The CoreStaff NSW Black Coal Enterprise Agreement 2018 pays casual mine workers $56.16 an hour, much less than the $66.40 a casual should be paid. The CFMEU is recognised under the agreement. The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement. The underpayment of each casual coalminer each year is $22,623. For FES, in Rockhampton, at a hearing of the inquiry into Labor's closing loopholes bill we received evidence that the FES agreement 2018 pays casual employee Dwayne Arnold $54 an hour, well short of the $66.40 a casual should be paid. This agreement was made with the CFMEU. The Fair Work Commission signed off on the agreement. The underpayment of each casual coalminer each year is $27,563. The WorkPac Coal Mining Agreement 2019 provides four different pay rates for a casual mine worker: between $42.99 and $51.38 an hour, depending on the day—all less than the hourly rate of a permanent worker. Calculations use the highest weekend rate even though this is more than what an average mine worker will get. It's far short of the $66.40 that should be paid. The CFMEU negotiated and approved the agreement. The Fair Work Commission signed it. The yearly underpayment for a casual coalminer is $33,555. The Chandler Macleod agreement in 2020 pays a casual $48.85 an hour, far below the $66.40 that should be paid and less than the hourly rate of a permanent worker on the award. The CFMEU was a bargaining representative for the 2015 agreement, supported its approval and is a party to the 2020 agreement. The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement. The yearly underpayment per mine worker is $39,341. Let's go to the TESA group. The agreement in 2022 pays a casual $48.28 an hour, far below the $66.40 that should be paid and less than the hourly rate of a permanent worker on the award. The CFMEU is a party to the agreement. The Fair Work Commission approved it. The yearly underpayment per worker is $40,645. That's almost $41,000 per year underpaid. Across these agreements a casual mineworker loses on average almost $33,000 every year compared to what they should be paid on the standard casual loading on the award rate. One Nation challenges each of the parties in this scam. To the labour hire companies, the CFMEU union bosses and the Fair Work Commission, One Nation says: prove to us that our report is wrong. Don't give us the excuse of the legal construct that you have created to enable and endorse the wage theft. Prove to us that the payments to the coal workers is higher than would be paid if the award allowed casual workers. Prove to us casuals are paid a loading. You will fail. Casuals are not paid a casual loading. It's wage theft. It's masterful wage theft. It's hideous wage theft. There are potentially tens of thousands of victim mineworkers in the history of dodgy agreements we can track over a decade. The total wage theft is massive. The failure of the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman is shocking institutional failure. The fact they covered it up after we informed them is a disgraceful failure. It calls into question the entire structure, promise and integrity of the system in Australia that is supposed to protect Australian workers from underpayment, from wage theft. Nothing in this bill will fix the absolute scandal One Nation has uncovered. Minister Burke's bill aims to hide those responsible. Failure of the CFMEU bosses is even more obvious. We have a signed letter from the Hunter Valley CFMEU and labour hire company Chandler Macleod. In that letter, the CFMEU promises to never take action against Chandler Macleod for any breaches of worker entitlements. Our report details that the CFMEU has had commercial business dealings in the coal sector for decades. The CFMEU pretends to be a union. In fact, it is one of the employers, the bosses. It started labour hire casuals in the Hunter. It employed labour hire casuals. It started it. This theft must stop. CFMEU union bosses must be held to account for failing to represent workers, for betraying workers. The Fair Work Commission must be held to account for failing to stop dodgy enterprise agreements. My amendment that I will be moving in the committee of the whole will ensure that those workers underpaid in the black coal industry will receive their fair pay entitlements in full. It adds transparency missing from the Fair Work Act and will ensure that the Fair Work Commission does its job, while the overprescriptive provisions of the Fair Work Act hide or ignore basic protections for workers. The Fair Work Commission has previously admitted that the Fair Work Act does not provide sufficient oversight of the Fair Work Commission when it fails to do its job. One thrust of Minister Burke's appalling bill is to cover up and bury Australia's largest ever wage theft. Thousands of coalminers have each been underpaid on average around $33,000 per year because their union bosses did a shady deal with their employer. I have detailed proof of this. My amendment will put an end to these dodgy deals and enterprise agreements that pay much less than the award and it will ensure workers are reimbursed their stolen wages. Nothing in the closing loopholes No. 2 bill will hold the unions or the Fair Work Commission to account. Instead, Anthony Albanese's solution is to give union bosses even more power with no accountability and no scrutiny. With what I have detailed in this speech, it's obvious that that would be simply putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The changes contained in the so-called closing loopholes No. 2 bill will be far-reaching and have devastating impacts on the way almost every operation in Australia is forced to do business. We have had countless meetings with unions, small businesses, employees, workers, industry associations, law groups and more. The overarching message that all of them could agree with me on was that the Fair Work Act is simply too complicated for any worker or business to understand. The act is already a bulky 1,341 pages. It's a sledgehammer that's killing our economy. It's so big it has to be split into three volumes so they can print it. It started 15 years ago as just a 652-page act. In the last five years alone, the Fair Work Act has increased by over 300 pages. What hope has someone who runs a bakery? What hope has an individual worker? The only ones who can keep up with all of the legislation changes and the complicated legal sections and find the loopholes are big corporations and big union bosses. They make the loopholes. I call them the industrial relations club. It includes big corporations, industrial relations consultants, lawyers and big union bosses. Big corporations love a complex Fair Work Act because it stops small businesses who can't figure out all the red tape from competing with them. Industrial relations lawyers love it because it keeps them in a job. Union bosses love it because it forces them into the conversation, whether the employees want them there or not. That's why you hear so much support for this bill from the big money players. Genuine small-business owners who are too busy trying to run small operations and to pay their staff don't have time to write parliamentary submissions or understand some amendments that may come into law. If this bill is passed, the 1,341-page Fair Work Act won't get smaller and easier to understand. It will make the act longer, more complex, more prescriptive—the opposite of everything we need to fix industrial relations in this country. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I know only One Nation will fight to make sure workers receive their entitlements, and my amendment will do exactly that. We don't need a so-called loopholes bill; we need enforcement of the award. 19:51 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak to the second half of this omnibus bill which we've now been examining for six months since last September. The Senate voted to delay the reporting of this bill and then voted to split this bill into two, and we're now facing the second half of that. There has been an exhaustive Senate committee process. One of the things that I had not realised about politics—not that I knew much about what to expect—is just how informative the Senate committee processes are and how collegiate things are, generally speaking; it gets heated at times. I'd really like to thank the secretariat and the committee—the chair, Senator Sheldon, and the numerous other senators—who basically did a roadshow around the country. I'd like to thank Senators O'Sullivan, Cash, Grogan, Barbara Pocock, Lambie and many others for engaging, listening and learning. There were seven full days of committee hearings in Launceston, Perth, Rockhampton, Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, which had two days. We've had a good look at this bill now. We've heard some pretty wild claims in here about what this bill does and doesn't do. Sure, omnibus bills lend themselves to that because there's a lot in them, but we have looked at this bill, and I'd really like to thank the stakeholders who have engaged so much over the last six months: the business groups, the small and large businesses, workers and unions. I know that many people in this place have done their own consultations. I've had four dedicated round tables where I've heard from these groups, and I've talked about this legislation at two town halls here in the ACT. I would like to thank people who attended and had input into that. So I think not only has there been scrutiny but there's also been genuine consultation. There's been work through the committee and then separately with businesses, employer organisations, unions, workers and the government to agree a huge list of amendments that make this bill better, that make it fairer and that make it simpler. I think some of the claims we've heard are not based in fact or in the legislation that is in front of us now. These changes don't give unions the right to waltz into someone's family home—not even close. It's expressly forbidden. You cannot enter a residential premises. We've seen some scaremongering and people trying to use fear when it comes to farmers and small-business owners about things that don't even apply to them. I think that's quite dangerous and something that we, as elected representatives, should really be avoiding. I think Australians are tired of politicians who cry wolf, who try to whip up fear, telling people that the sky is going to fall, and who aren't willing to engage and improve things for people, for Australians—yes, both those who run the small businesses and those who work in businesses across the country. What I've been hearing from people is that they want to see us engage, want to see us listening and negotiating constructively on legislation, and that's what I've been trying to do. Australians know we have a system that needs some work. They don't want delivery drivers who drop burgers off to them but are unable to live above the poverty line, who have no basic rights or insurance, who are getting knocked over and killed on a regular basis. They don't want truck drivers to have to work hours that are dangerous for themselves and other road users just to put food on the table for their families. They don't want a system where lecturers in our universities work seven years as casuals doing permanent work and are unable to apply for a home loan or have the stability of permanent employment even though they are doing that job year in, year out. Australians know that things have to change and improve, but, yes, they also want flexibility. They want to ensure that workers who want to work as casuals, whether because they like the flexibility or because they like the casual loading, can do so. Through the committee process, looking through submissions and talking to stakeholders, I think almost every area that was raised as a key concern during consultation has been improved and there has been a balance struck. There are people on both sides who are unhappy, but things like people's right to convert from casual to permanent have been strengthened. The conversion pathway has been simplified to one employee-led pathway that. That was something we heard a lot about during the committee process. Again, there's the flexibility for casuals to opt to remain casual. I think the amendments to this bill also make it fairer for businesses. They can refuse a conversion request on fair and reasonable grounds. We know that the circumstances of small businesses change a lot. Their income through the year changes a lot, their workload changes a lot, and we need that flexibility for them. The amendments also give businesses longer to adapt to the changes. Small businesses will be carved out of the civil penalty provisions, and the government is open to a review of the definitions of small business. Across Commonwealth legislation there are many definitions. One thing I've been hearing from small businesses is that more and more people wanting to work flexible hours means businesses have a higher headcount of employees on their books, so I think that warrants a look at the whole range of totals and numbers that are used. One of the other things we heard was agreement on the need for new minimum standards for gig workers, and for the first time in this country we'll have a system that looks to ensure gig workers have minimum standards.\ Crucially, there will be a review of this legislation in two years. I think it's ridiculous for us to just set and forget things. We are going to have to improve this, and I think two years is a good length of time to see some of this work through. The crossbench have done a lot of work on this, and I want to thank Senator Lambie and Senator Barbara Pocock for working constructively as a crossbench to improve this legislation. There have been a range of amendments: when it comes to casual employment, delaying the commencement of the casuals provisions until six months after royal assent, to give stakeholders time to prepare for the new arrangements; making sure the employment contract can still be considered by the Fair Work Commission in determining whether or not an employee is casual, which was something we heard a lot about during the committee process; ensuring that a single indicator should not establish a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work; clarifying that an employer may be able to offer, or refuse to offer, work to a casual employee; and broadening the capacity for employees to enter into fixed term contracts as casual employees, which was a significant concern that was raised. Finally, there's an amendment that would ensure that all employees may be engaged on fixed term contracts as casuals except academics, as I mentioned earlier. This largely resolves legitimate concerns raised by on-hire companies offering temporary contracts, including to the Public Service. The conversion pathway that I mentioned came up a lot in the committee hearings, and this legislation repeals the existing requirement on businesses to offer conversion to staff. It's now one simpler conversion pathway for employees to request a conversion. This will relieve the existing administrative burden that we heard about from businesses. There's also a provision that makes it simpler for business, especially small business, to refuse casual conversion by removing the requirement to provide a detailed statement of reasons. Senator Scarr talked about just how busy small businesses are. We do need to be doing things that ensure that workers are looked after, but we're also reducing red tape for small businesses. Critically, part of this legislation will amend the Fair Work Act to allow the government to lower barriers to casual employees in the Australian Public Service converting to permanent and enabling them to apply to the Fair Work Commission to deal with disputes about casual conversion. We heard about issues around public servants who are working as casuals for a long time and because of the requirements of the merits based employment process they miss out. So, there'll now be a legitimate pathway for them. When it comes to gig workers, there's a range of amendments limiting the Fair Work Commission to considering only the class or classes of regulated businesses to be covered by proposed minimum standard orders or guidelines rather than naming individual businesses through the minister's reg-making power and increasing from one to two out of three the number of criteria someone needs to meet to be defined as employee-like. When it comes to right of entry, which I know there has been much debate about, there's an additional guardrail such that the Fair Work Commission, prior to issuing a certificate, must be satisfied that advance notice of entry into a workplace would hinder an effective investigation into suspected underpayments. That's a high bar to clear. When it comes to the right to disconnect—and I'd like to acknowledge Senator Barbara Pocock's work on this for many, many years—I think it now strikes the right balance, where it is a right of the employee not to have to respond if they think it's unreasonable, if they're not being paid for that time. It doesn't affect people who have an allowance or have that in their contract. But I think there's a whole heap of workers out there, a whole heap of Australians who want a way to be able to say to their boss: 'I'm off. I want to spend time with my family and get away for a bit.' When it comes to road transport, I'd like to acknowledge the amount of work that was done there before this legislation hit the Senate to build consensus. Despite what Senator Hume may say about there being no consensus, based on the engagement I've had there is a lot more consensus than I've seen on other issues that come through this place, and I acknowledge that that must have taken a lot of work. There are amendments that enable peak councils, defined as a national state council or federation that is effectively representative of a significant number of organisations, to make applications to vary or revoke minimum standards orders—this is another safeguard—and provide that minimum standard orders can include a term only to the extent necessary to achieve the minimum standards objective—again, another guardrail which I think is important. Just to finish on the review, I think it's good practice, and I'd like to thank the government—Minister Burke—for the way they have gone about this and engaged with the crossbench. 20:04 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I am very pleased to be able to rise in the second reading debate here in the Senate to address the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. This is a piece of work that completes very important work that was commenced with the secure jobs, better pay bill, which has been interrupted. And its's been the subject of considerable conversation in the community and some incredibly unhelpful hysteria from those who lost government and are still bleating and moaning that the world is being destroyed and that they cannot cope with life on the other side of this chamber. Their opposition is to everything, all the time. They are aptly called the 'no-alition'. They do not want this to proceed. But there is good work being done here in the Senate, good work being done by an orderly government that respectfully engages with the people here who have been elected by the Australian people, that engages with the crossbench in a way that is respectful, determined to move as collaboratively and cleverly as we can towards cooperation in the interest of the nation. It's that endeavour of serving the nation that's going to see this bill advance, with the declarations today that it looks like there's support for this bill at this point in time—which hadn't been there. Building consensus isn't an easy thing to do. That's why I want to take the opportunity to roundly endorse the profound leadership on these matters of the great Transport Workers Union, and the two men sitting here inside the Senate with me, directly in front of me: Senator Tony Sheldon—who's had a long and illustrious career with the TWU as its former leader and is now a great senator for the great state of New South Wales, alongside me here—and the wonderful Glenn Sterle from Western Australia. And I see representatives of the Transport Workers Union, and I'll wave to you, happily. I wave to you on the roads, like everybody does—wave to the trucks as we pass them. They are representing workers in the transport industry, representing owner-drivers in the transport industry, representing big businesses in the transport industry and representing every Australian who gets on the road every day with their precious cargo, the people they love, in the car, relying on your advocacy to bring to the attention of this Senate important matters of national safety and security. And you've been doing it for years—years and years and years. There'll be a couple of steps forward, and then we get the opposition, when they were in government, and many steps backwards. But you've never resiled from the task. Your heart's been pure, and your efforts have been powerful and effective. So, I want to really congratulate you, because that's what union people do: never give up, always fight. And it's not a selfish fight for you as individuals; it's a battle in the interest of many. When this legislation passes there will be victory and benefit to so many millions of Australian workers, and your efforts over many years are a vital part of the recipe that is being cooked here today. So I want to sincerely thank you for those efforts. Australians do believe that we live in a great country, and we believe in fairness. We also believe in the rule of law. People think that if it's in the law it's going to be pretty fair, and they're pretty shocked sometimes when they find that that isn't the case. I know Australian workers from growing up in a small-business family, in the construction sector, where across the road from us were a couple of drivers of trucks for the coalmining industry up in Appin. They used to park their trucks out the back of where we lived, and they were proud of their rigs. That's the kind of family that I grew up in, where everybody on our street wanted to pay off a house, raise their kids and do something meaningful, to be proud of what they did, to be able to go to work, to show up and get paid fairly for the work they do every day. I don't think it's unreasonable, either, that Australian workers should work in a workplace where they have a degree of safety such that they can expect that they'll probably go home alive. That is not an unreasonable expectation. This piece of legislation today goes to all these things. It's about people showing up and getting paid fairly for what they do. It's about people showing up and being able to operate safely in the industry that they choose to be a part of. And it's about people having, in those conditions, the necessary security of a job that will let them go to a bank and say, 'I've got enough security in my job to be able to pay back a loan' or 'I can actually buy a car', if they live in regional Australia, where there are no buses, no other transport, and if you've got no car you don't work. Even where I live, on the Central Coast, an hour and a half outside Sydney, a public transport system just doesn't operate. If you don't have a car, you don't work, you can't advance and you can't move into the future, which I believe you have a right to do as an Australian. You have to be able to pay off a car loan. And the dream of owning an Australian home is something that people still very much hold onto in this country. There's a crisis in that sector as well that's going to require further legislation and policy work from this government to begin to redress the decades of neglect. But you're never going to get a home loan if you haven't got secure income. No bank is going to lend to you. And the insecurity of work that is the signature of those who are now sitting on the opposition benches is what they want to see continue to be the way of Australia. Well, no longer. I congratulate all the senators in this place who are coming onboard with a far better, healthier, more sustainable, more dignified, more just, more Australian way of enabling workers in this country to get the basic rights they deserve—to close the loopholes, to close the flawed, unethical exploitative practices of bad employers who seek profit over everything else and forget the humanity of the people who are the workforce. I said I grew up in a small-business family. Sadly my dad, who was out on the construction sites laying out pipe, didn't live past his 49th birthday. But when my mum turned 70 and we had a party, let me tell you, half the people in that room were people who formerly worked in that business, because good businesses, especially good small businesses, absolutely understand that the strength of their business lies in the quality of their workforce. People who work in a small business are a work family, and you look after your people if you want to be successful in an ever-changing economy and you're in a small business. The small businesses that are already doing the things that this legislation is going to force the malign actors to come onboard with are actually going to have, for the first time in a decade, a level playing field—these great businesses that are already doing all the things that this piece of legislation is going to make law. I want to congratulate Minister Burke, because there have been some serious headwinds—incredible opposition. We've heard some of the hysteria manifest in this chamber this evening. Senator David Pocock has already commented on it. There is, unbelievably, a desire amongst some people in this place, on that side of the chamber, to stand up and completely misrepresent reality. The shame of that is worn as a badge of honour, if they can prop up malign actors in big businesses and small that are abusing their workers. That's nothing to be proud of. The Australia I'm proud of is the one that unions have built and that unions are developing, through new legislation with this government and the crossbench, for Australia and our future. We can be better. If you're unfortunate enough as a worker to choose to work in a business that hasn't been doing the right thing, it's going to get a whole lot better when this piece of legislation is passed. If you're an immigrant to this country and come here with the belief that you're going to get a fair crack at life as a worker, this legislation is going to make it an awful lot more likely. It wasn't so very long ago that the opposition leader at the time, Anthony Albanese, promised something extraordinary, it would seem from the media's response, which was just to recommend that the Fair Work Commission give Australians a minimum wage increase of $1. That set off chaos amongst the then government. Mr Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton and other members of the Liberal and National parties absolutely opposed that. The coalition threatened that the sky would fall in if the lowest-paid workers in Australia, some of whom are our essential workers, many of them represented by the great union with which I'm affiliated, the SDA—people who were on the front line looking after us during COVID—were granted that pay rise. And, like on so many things, the Liberal and National parties were wrong then, and they're wrong now in continuing to oppose this important piece of legislation. Labor has always been there, supporting the national interest and looking after the workers of Australia. We're the party that brought in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme because people needed that. We're the party that brought in Medicare 40 years ago, against opposition, because the Australian people needed that. The Labor Party saw it. We understood it. We cared enough about it to create and bring into being Medicare. We brought in superannuation—a dignified retirement. The predecessors of this opposition said that the world would fall apart and that the whole economy would fall apart if superannuation were brought in. There's a pattern here. They oppose anything that advantages ordinary, hardworking Australians. That is why they're going to continue to oppose this piece of legislation. They have no vision for the country. They have no sense of integrity in legislating for the advantage of all Australians. Theirs is an Australia where some have, and they feel even better when some don't. That is not the kind of Australia that the Labor Party seeks to bring into being in Australia. We've always been there for the Australian workers. This legislation is going to certainly improve the lot of Australian workers, and it's going to improve the competitive advantage to good businesses that are doing the right thing already. This bill was not designed to hurt or impact good employees. We know that loopholes undermining pay and conditions for Australian workers cannot continue. Minister Burke has led the charge. He has been ably supported by decent Australians in business and in unions and by people who found out a little about what's going on here—people who've been subject to those loopholes. My good friend Senator Polley this morning in her contribution said that she was brought up in a family that I think is quintessentially Australian. She was told, 'Show up to work, do a really good day's work, get a fair pay, make sure you've got an insurance policy and join your union, and if you get really smart you'll join the Labor Party too.' She knows what a winning ticket looks like. This piece of legislation will close the loopholes that have seen too many Australians exploited. This is going to be better for workers and better for our nation. 20:19 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. I won't respond to the comments of those opposite just yet—I will save that for some time later on—but I do want to respond to the comments of Senator David Pocock, who was elected on a platform of integrity, transparency and accountability. Yet, at the same time, Senator David Pocock has shut down debate on this important, significant and controversial legislation. He has shut that debate down— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Hume, I'll just alert you to not impugning people's motives— Senator HUME 266499 It's not imputing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 This is a warning shot. Senator HUME 266499 I'm sorry, Madam President, but I am simply saying that this is exactly what has happened. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 It's not a debate, Senator Hume. It's not a debate. Please continue with your contribution. Senator HUME 266499 I'm not sure how Senator David Pocock is going to sleep tonight. I'm not sure whether he will sleep uncomfortably, but what I can say is that this circumvention of the values that he said that he took to the election won't be forgotten. Before that election, the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, told Australians that they would be better off under Labor. We should have known that this fellow had a pretty weird relationship with the truth right back then. Nearly two years on, we've seen inflation and the cost of living skyrocket. Australians now suffer from the highest inflation rates in the developed world—higher than those of the UK, US, France, Japan, Italy and Canada. So much for 'better off'! Under this government we've seen 12 interest rate rises. First the Treasurer and the Prime Minister decided to try and blame almost anybody else for this problem. They demonised the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, saying that he was the reason that rates were rising—the independent Governor of the Reserve Bank! But now we've seen that interest rates have also risen under the new Governor of the Reserve Bank, who was appointed by this government. Indeed, she was the one who said that Australia's inflation crisis is a homegrown problem. Labor has mismanaged the economy. They have spent billions of taxpayer money on spending that has fuelled this inflation. As a result, Australians don't need to be told that they are feeling that cost-of-living crisis. The average Australian is around $8,000 a year worse off under this government. Their disposable income has decreased under this government. They're paying around 27 per cent more in taxes and, at the same time, the economy has flatlined. It has tanked. Productivity has gone backwards. GDP is only positive because of the excessive—enormous—number of migrants that we've seen come into this economy. If we had not had those migrants coming in, we would be in a recession right now. That's economic management under Labor. At the same time, Labor's solution to this crisis is not meaningful cost-of-living relief. They haven't answered the calls of ordinary Australian families. They have answered their cries for help. Instead, they have decided to answer the calls of unions. They haven't decided to loosen the reins on the economy to get growth moving and turbocharge productivity. They haven't decided to lower energy prices and inject more supply into the system. They haven't decided to cut red tape. They certainly haven't decided to simplify the tax system: indeed, they've done the opposite. Instead, they have actually decided to add more burden onto employers, because Labor thinks that making it harder to hire people, run a business and sell a product will bring down the cost of living. That is economically illiterate. The Labor government is so beholden to those unions and so single-minded in its thinking that it hasn't got a clue on how its policies are damaging our economy and driving up the cost of living. It was the coalition that set up the cost-of-living committee, because we could see how the government's measures and policies were putting a bandaid on a bullet wound and potentially making the problems worse. How do we know that these IR changes are making the cost-of-living crisis worse? Well, that's pretty simple. We know because the coalition's cost-of-living committee was told that these proposed laws would add complexity and would freeze up a system to provide cheaper food, cheaper energy and cheaper housing. That's exactly what the committee heard. These industrial relations changes make the problem worse. This is a radical reordering of Australian workplace laws and every business organisation in the country has pleaded with the government not to go ahead with it. In fact, Senator Sheldon, Senator Stewart and, indeed, Senator Grogan were there at the cost-of-living committee listening to these businesses and organisations that were saying, 'Please do not do this.' Instead, not only have they gone ahead with these causes; they have championed them. They have not paid any attention to the job creators in Australia who told them that it will be harder now to keep people in jobs. Minister Burke clearly does not care. This sort of complexity and the costs associated with it will be impossible for small businesses to deal with. It will only add to the cost-of-living crisis. As my colleague Paul Scarr said, this is going to make a bad situation worse. The CEO of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia told the committee: The impact of IR cannot be underestimated for small businesses. And let me just add a small-business flavour to it: it is the opportunity cost. The ability for small businesses to delight their customers is being undermined by this additional red tape—this cost of compliance. Not only are there higher costs to pass on but also you're potentially seeing a bit less innovation, a bit less creativity and a bit less excitement from your small businesses because they're worried about this big new rule book, the impact it's going to have on them and, if they make a mistake, what the implications of that will be. Where small-business employers do the wrong thing, there should be recourse. The CEO went on to tell us that these changes: … will run roughshod over many of the aspirations and goals of the white paper. It's really that simple. It's like you've installed a shiny new coach of a sporting team but all the players have been benched. The system's just working against itself. The left hand and the right hand are not talking together. That was the CEO of COSBOA on 26 September last year. How is making the system work against itself helping businesses to do their job—helping them to deliver cheaper food, cheaper energy and cheaper housing? If you're serious about dealing with the cost-of-living crisis—and let's not forget that this Prime Minister said not last new year but the new year before that his new year's resolution was to bring down the cost of living. He failed in that quest. How can you possibly set a system against itself if you want to deliver that cheaper food, cheaper energy and cheaper housing? If we know that this bill will add complexity to a system that's already struggling to meet a demand that's driving up prices, why would we do this at the exact point where Australians are suffering the most from those prices? That CEO also said: … small businesses employ three million Australians, so a thriving and dynamic small business sector is arguably the best thing for workers and their real wages in this country. It's the key to productivity … It's the key to sustainable jobs, secure jobs, having a dynamic small business sector. We were extremely disappointed that the modelling of the IR bill didn't pick up any of the real-world cost on small business. Now, we in the coalition know that, for many Australians who were hoping to keep their jobs and earn more in the future, the last thing that they need is more red tape. Does a Labor government really, seriously think that these measures will make it easier for the small businesses that are employing millions of those Australians to do their jobs, easier for these businesses to grow or easier for them to hire more Australians? Dare I say it, the cat has been belled. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, just yesterday, forecast higher unemployment because of the policies that this government is implementing. It's not just small businesses that it has impacted. Without a doubt, Australia and our Commonwealth budget benefit from the enormous mineral resources that our country exports. In recent times that, along with bracket creep, has been what's propped up our finances through record prices and record exports. But if Labor think that these operations are so big that, no matter how hard they hit them with these new regulations, these geese will still lay the golden eggs, that is not so. The CEO of the Minerals Council also told the cost-of-living committee that the changes will be indiscriminate in their damage. She said: You've got to keep a system that's flexible, that doesn't have rigidities in it and that allows for business models to thrive across the economy to make sure that it's highly productive. That's the sort of industrial relations system we need to have. You need to protect the most vulnerable in the economy. You can argue that the changes that have occurred over the last couple of years have addressed the issues that, fundamentally, we have wanted to see changed. This latest industrial relations tranche, however, does nothing more to assist the economy to be productive or to bring down the cost of living. It's fascinating, isn't it, that the French finance minister to Louis XIV said that the art of taxation was to pluck the goose to obtain the largest number of feathers with the least amount of hissing. The same goes for industrial relations, and, my goodness, isn't that hissing! I think that maybe you've plucked one too many feathers here. It's productivity that will drive Australia into the next decade of luck and productivity, but you have put a handbrake on this. You have shackled our economy and essentially handicapped our growth. Any growth that we do experience will be in spite of a Labor government, not because of it. The RBA's warnings ring true. Experts from Beyond Business Consultants have confirmed that this is a productivity-killing bill. Our productivity has already gone backwards, to 2017 levels, but Labor doesn't care. I'll tell you who does care: Professor Robertson, the dean and head of school at the business school of the University of Western Australia. He told the cost-of-living committee: We are concerned about the industrial relations reforms bill that you were talking about before. I think that's going to increase labour costs and reduce productivity. So it's not just the Liberal Party. You don't need to listen just to us to know that this is a bad bill that's going to drive up the cost of living. You can listen to small business. You can listen to big business. You can listen to academics. All of them are telling you of their view that this will make the cost-of-living crisis worse. The Albanese Labor government's latest round of industrial relations will have a damaging impact on our economy and on your standard of living. The government, the Greens and Senator Pocock have let drop a number of last-minute amendments to this proposed legislation, which they're now ramming through in less than 24 hours without scrutiny. These amendments actually make this bad bill even worse overall. This legislation would create extreme uncertainty for businesses which employ casual workers, particularly small businesses. It's estimated that we'll see prices for food delivery and ride-share services increase by 35 per cent. I hope everyone understands that the cost of their Ubers and their takeaway is going to go up by a third under this government because of this legislation. It will increase access of union officials to our workplaces across the country. The government has now introduced an amendment which will significantly increase uncertainty in the road transport sector, giving the Fair Work Commission significant new powers to set conditions for drivers. In the last minutes, the government has also accepted the Greens amendment for a right to disconnect. What the hell will that mean? We don't understand it and neither does business, because there has been no scrutiny of this bill. You haven't provided any detail about how this will work or who it will apply to. That's because Labor is all about your rights and never about obligations. Obligations are just as important as rights. In a country with five time zones during the summer months, in a globally competitive economy, no-one has given a coherent answer on how this bill will increase productivity in the workplace. In a cost-of-living crisis that is exacerbated, when disposable incomes have gone backwards, the decision this government is making is making the problem worse. (Time expired) 20:35 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Maybe the coalition need to speak to the workers! I rise to speak to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. As I said when the first part of this package passed late last year, this bill is good news for workers in this country. It doesn't go far enough and a lot remains to be done, but it is a decent and much overdue start. I wish to thank Minister Burke for his ongoing constructive engagement around this bill, and I'm happy to share that I will be moving two amendments later which I have successfully negotiated with the government. The first one is the inclusion of the new employee choice pathway to change to permanent employment in the workplace rights for employees. This means that, if casuals request conversion to full-time or part-time employment, all steps of this process are covered under the general protections provisions, which prohibit adverse action, coercion, undue influence or pressure and misrepresentations because of a workplace right of an employee. The second amendment ensures timing for employers giving a casual employee the casual employment information statement, the CEIS, which outlines the right to convert to full-time or part-time employment. It aligns with employee eligibility in that the statement will not just be handed to the employee at the start of employment, and after 12 months, but also at the six-month mark, when casuals—besides those of small businesses—become eligible to convert. It also includes a provision to provide the CEIS every 12 months ongoingly to remind casual employees of their rights, as their work circumstances might have changed in that time frame. There has been much panic from business, especially major business, about this new employee pathway, crying that it will basically eliminate the category of casual employment and would force even those that specifically benefit from the flexibility of casual working arrangements into other forms of employment. It is all nonsense. The whole pathway of conversion is completely voluntary and employee driven, and no-one will be forced into it. It is important to provide this pathway to permanent employment and the rights and benefits that come with it. All it does is this: a casual employee who believes that they are no longer a casual employee can give a written notification to their employer to request changing their employment status to full-time or part-time employment. This bill also grants various powers to the Fair Work Commission, including making minimum standard orders, which are similar in many aspects to modern awards, setting minimum terms and conditions for the gig economy of digital labour platforms. This is to improve the job security and income of gig workers—some of the most undervalued and underpaid workers in our society. All too often, gig workers have low bargaining power to improve their working conditions, and they receive pay well below the minimum standards. While I'm sure many of you here like me are regularly using food or other delivery services, rideshares and care or home services through these platforms to entertain our privileged, convenient lives, I have heard the most outrageous statements of why regulation of these platforms is not needed. Some of you seriously argue that those working through these platforms chose to do so and are therefore clearly happy with the pay rates and working conditions they receive. I met with someone yesterday who worked over 100 hours and was paid only 80 bucks—100 hours for 80 bucks for your Uber Eats! Do you really think any of these workers would not rather be paid decently for their hard work and work in safe conditions, being afforded sick or carers leave when needed rather than pushing through as they can't forgo even the meagre pay? When it comes to the care sector, government rates for care packages, which usually pay for the services booked through the digital platforms, are actually designed to cover employment related costs like superannuation, leave provisions and workers compensation. Most platforms, however, do not employ their workers but engage them as contractors, which means workers never see the benefits of these provisions. So, instead of our taxpayer money for these care packages covering decent worker entitlements, we finance the profits of the platforms. These are the people looking after your loved ones, and yet they face a complete disrespect for their hard work and their human rights. Those of you voting down these provisions should not be able to access digital platform services again. Delete your apps. If you don't support the workers, delete your apps. To conclude: I will support this bill, as it is an important step to ensuring better workplace conditions for so many people. Much of the detail of what this will look like in the future remains to be seen, and I look forward to the agenda the Fair Work Commission will set up for determining minimum standards for digital platform work. I will keep watching this process closely and I will stand with workers always. Don't forget, those that oppose this bill: don't ever call Uber Eats; don't ever call an Uber; delete your apps right now. 20:42 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I, too, rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. Last year we voted to make wage theft a crime and crack down on labour hire loopholes, and we introduced a new criminal offence for industrial manslaughter. We recognised the critical role of our nation's union delegates in helping to deliver safe, fair and productive workplaces. Today we're here with unfinished business. Today we're here to close more loopholes. We're here to protect more vulnerable workers. And we're here to make sure that our workplace laws are updated to reflect the evolution of work this century, including to address the rise of platforms and the reliance of so many workers on gig jobs to survive and get by. In this bill, we're standing up for those gig workers and ensuring that they're not exploited, by allowing the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for gig workers. It's pretty simple, and it's really not radical, because the Fair Work Commission have set standards for workers in this country for literally generations, and it's time that they had the power to bring unions and platforms together to set basic minimum standards for this new form of work, gig work. We've heard time and time again over recent years just how bad gig work is for the people who are trying to survive on it and just how often they face below-minimum rates and unsafe conditions. There was an extremely thorough Senate inquiry into this bill, led by our colleague Senator Tony Sheldon. The Senate inquiry into the bill heard from delivery workers who were working 14-hour days just to try to survive and earning as little as $6 an hour. Tragically the inquiry also heard that there have been 15 deaths in food delivery and rideshare since 2017 as these workers hustle for a decent wage. Yesterday I met with delivery riders and I heard from Zhuoying, who is a delivery rider for HungryPanda. She told me her story. Her company dropped riders' base delivery rate to $4 for motorcycle riders and $5 for bicycle riders, and they introduced bonuses for dangerous delivery deadlines. That of course was without any form of consultation or any mechanism for objection on the part of the workers who were using the platform to make a wage and live. It was without any form of negotiation. All we are doing is empowering unions, workers and the platforms to come together, deal with these issues and actually set minimum standards that make sense both for the workers in those sectors and for the platforms. I also met delivery rider Mugdha yesterday, who was hit by a car while she was at work making deliveries. She was left unconscious on the side of the road. She had no access to workers compensation and no access to support. She was forced to return to work without treatment, and today she lives in chronic pain as a result. It should not be this way in Australia today. These workers deserve safe jobs. These workers deserve the same rights as other people who are working in Australia today. I congratulate the Transport Workers Union for bringing the voices of these workers to the parliament and also to this legislation. It's not just the food delivery platforms that we want to allow to go to Fair Work and set standards with their employees. Gig work and casualisation are growing in our care sector as well. Mary is a disability support gig worker. Sometimes she needs to take her clients out and about to go for a coffee, to go to the pool or to go see a movie or she needs to clean their house, where she has to supply her own PPE, her own cleaning equipment and her own cleaning products. These expenses are adding up for Mary because she's not paid for them and she can't claim them on tax. All of that is happening while her pay is up to 46 per cent below the award. We know that there was a push to exclude gig platforms operating in the care economy from these really important reforms. It's absolutely critical that platforms in the care economy have been included in this legislation. We can go back to the aged-care royal commission, which said that care should prioritise direct employment over gig work. At the very least we need to protect our essential care workers, our elders and others requiring care and support. We need to protect them all by allowing Fair Work to be able to set some basic, minimum standards for the pay that people get and for the safety that they can expect in their workplace. Again, this is not radical. This is Australia, where people who do this really important work that we all now rely on absolutely deserve a basic minimum wage and they absolutely deserve a safe workplace. All of the workers that I spoke to and that I've spoken about tonight deserve better. They deserve a good job that they can count on. This bill is going to help deliver that. It will help close the door on exploitation and ensure that Australia doesn't become a nation where survival depends on tips. It will stop companies from jeopardising workers' safety. And the bottom line really is that it's going to bring Fair Work into the 21st century. It's going to bring Fair Work in line with the way that work is organised today. It is not a radical proposal, but Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party of course oppose every step, and we've heard that here in the chamber tonight. We know that they want to keep wages low. They tell us that every day. We know they want to hold workers back, but we on this side of the chamber won't stand for that. I really want to thank the workers and their unions who have stood up for this reform over many years. This has taken literally hundreds and hundreds of workers speaking out and telling their stories, coming to the parliament and sharing their experiences, coming to Senate inquiry after inquiry and engaging with all of us here. This is really down to them, and this legislation is really for them. This bill is just going to deliver some basic minimum standards for workers. That's what it's going to do. It's going to deliver some basic safety standards for these workers. Fair and safe workplaces are what Australians expect, and it's what all Australian workers, and all workers who we invite to our shores to work in the essential jobs that we rely on, deserve. 20:50 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia We really do hear some nonsense in some of these debates and caricatures from those opposite. I speak to workers all the time. I speak to workers about their employment. I speak in particular to workers who work in small businesses in my home state of Western Australia. And guess what? They don't talk about the union movement. They want a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Yes, they do want that. They want a good relationship with their boss. They don't want the union movement sticking their noses into the small and medium-sized business places of Western Australia. They don't want that, and anyone who thinks they do is, quite frankly, merely in here to do the bidding of the union movement—because that is the central lie at the heart of this legislation. The central lie at the heart of this legislation is that there has been a massive change in the make-up of the Australian workforce over the past couple of generations. The balance between part-time, casual, full-time and gig work, for want of a better phrase, in the Australian economy has not changed in over a generation. This growth of gig work that those opposite talk about is a lie. This growth of casualisation in the economy that those opposite talk about is a lie. It simply hasn't happened. The broad make-up of the Australian economy has not changed in terms of those broad employment categories since the 1990s, and yet you have those opposite continuing to stand up in here and roll this out as a reason why they have to make these radical changes. The real reason they have to make these radical changes is they have to follow their paymasters. They have to do what the union movement tells them to do. That is at the core of the previous bill we passed last year. It is at the core of this bill. It is the Labor Party doing what their union bosses sent them here to do and giving the union movement a business model into the future. Because guess what? Workers voted with their feet. Workers voted with their feet about the union movement. What's the current percentage of the private sector workforce that's joined a union? I know Senator O'Sullivan knows because we sat through the inquiry into this bill. I know Senator O'Sullivan knows. I suspect other senators on this side know. I think Senator Lambie would know as well. It's under 10 per cent. It's eight per cent. Less than one in 10 private sector workers feels the union movement delivers good value to them—less than one in 10 private sector workers. So this idea that workers, particularly workers in small and medium business, are clamouring to get the union movement back through their door to cause problems in their workplace—because the union movement don't like casualised workers, do they? They don't like flexibility. That's the other lie that's at the heart of this bill—the idea that casual or flexible workplaces and workforces are a bad thing. Many, many workers choose casual, non-permanent, part-time, gig work at various points in their career for very good personal and economic reasons. People sometimes choose to work flexible hours or casual hours because of home commitments. Perhaps they choose to work in those jobs because they're studying at university and don't want the commitment of a full-time or permanent part-time position. At the hearings that Senator O'Sullivan and I participated in—Senator O'Sullivan did an outstanding job as the deputy chair of the committee—people in the union movement were willing to say that casualisation isn't really a major problem and that people do choose to be casuals in the workforce. So why does the union movement hate casualisation and flexibility so much? The reason is quite simple. Because those sectors of the workforce are harder to unionise. It's harder to get people to sign up to unions. It's harder to get those union dues. It's harder to get those new members of the Labor Party via the union movement. We've very clearly got here, pretty much in black and white, a business model for the union movement. But what this bill fails to do is almost as egregious as what it does do. On the one hand it provides a business model to the union movement; it provides a business model to that small and shrinking part of the economy, as we have seen over the past few generations. Private-sector workers, in particular, have been departing the unions. They don't see the need for them. They don't want them in their workplaces—unless they're forced in by the government, given rights of access under this legislation into businesses that they didn't have a right of access to before. On the other hand, what doesn't this bill do? This bill actually does nothing good, and it does a number of things that will be destructive to our economy over time. It does absolutely nothing for productivity in Australia. We will see a continuing decline and weakness in productivity in this country on the back of this bill. The reality is that those negative impacts on the economy do take time to flow through. But where you'll see it first is in the unemployment rate. We saw the Governor of the Reserve Bank, in her public statements following the Reserve Bank's decision, saying that they expect the unemployment rate to rise. Of course, inefficiency in the workplace and inefficiency in our industrial relations system will have the consequence of putting people out of work, of putting less people into work. There will be less jobs available to younger people to get into permanent employment, if that is what they choose. It will create uncertainty in the business community, uncertainty that we have seen and we have heard about. I know those opposite don't talk to businesses, but we do. And what we hear from those businesses is that this bill puts uncertainty about future employment opportunities into their minds. It makes them hesitant about how to treat their current employees. It makes them uncertain about the legislative environment they have to operate in, about the red tape they have to operate under. You've got to remember a lot of the businesses I'm talking about are not your Woolies and Coles and Qantas, with massive human resource departments. Mum or dad is the human resource department. Mum or dad is the one who has to comply with the red tape. When I grew up—I grew up on a family farm, as many of you know—it was mum and dad. That was it. And that is true of so many small businesses across Australia. They're not the ones who have the massive human resource department behind them to navigate this right to disconnect, which is something we didn't even hear about until the last few days in the media. It's something that certainly wasn't a part of the inquiry Senator O'Sullivan and I participated in on the Education and Employment Legislation Committee. Maybe Senator Sheldon, the chair of that committee, knew about the right-to-disconnect provisions. Maybe he knows what that drafting is now. But I haven't seen it yet. How can we make a sensible judgement on legislation when parts of it, as Senator Thorpe's contribution indicated earlier, include amendments for which this is the first I've heard about them? It's the first I, as a member of the committee inquiring into this bill, have heard about amendments that Senator Thorpe has negotiated with the government. We've also got the Greens' amendment that they've negotiated with the government and that we haven't seen. The right to disconnect is an issue that has literally not been raised with me once in the last six years of talking to businesses and employees. Not once has a worker said to me, 'By the way, I really don't want to have to take a call from my boss at 5.30 in the afternoon.' It's absolute nonsense. It's a problem searching for a solution where the problem didn't exist in the first place. It's just a non-issue. Labor rolls over to the Greens yet again—the tail wagging the dog—on an issue they know is not an issue. But doing the bidding of their union movement and getting this bill through are all that matters to them, so it's, 'Let's just give that to the Greens so we can get this bill through parliament and do what the union movement has told us to do.' Businesses are awake to this, and I think a lot of employees are awake to this. Employees want to maintain a positive relationship with the businesses that employ them, and they don't want the reimposition of union right of entry. They don't want the unions to get involved at their workplaces, and they have voted with their feet. The private sector workers of Australia voted with their feet. They left the union movement in droves over the last couple of decades, to deal directly with the businesses that employ them, and that is a system saw Australia have the longest stretch of economic growth in our history during that period. What was the key ingredient in the IR mix? It was flexibility and that ability for people to pick and choose within a system the kind of environment and the kind of workplace relationship that they wanted to have with their employer. They didn't want the union movement involved at every workplace or the heavy-handedness of the centralised industrial relations system that we are seeing this bill return Australia to. This is an economically destructive bill. It will damage our economy over time and it will see more people on the unemployment queue. I think that is a disgrace, and this bill should not be supported. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Before I call Senator Lambie, I note that during Senator Brockman's contribution there was a fair amount of incidental chatter in the chamber, as well as interjections, and it's been a little bit difficult to hear. A senator deserves to be heard in silence. 21:04 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Tomorrow I will be moving an amendment. I have no doubt it's the amendment the minister was trying to call me about 20 minutes ago, and I've decided to use my disconnect. That's what I'm doing, so— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator LAMBIE 250026 Yes, my right to disconnect. That's correct. There you go, Minister. Tomorrow I will be moving an amendment to enable the Manufacturing Division of the CFMEU, which includes textile, clothing and footwear workers; timber workers; and furniture workers, to hold a secret ballot to demerge from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union—or, as we all know it, the CFMEU. I'm going to tell you why. The textile, clothing and footwear sector is currently part of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, the CFMEU, after it did a merger with them in 2018. The textile, clothing and footwear sector is part of the CFMEU and has their greatest number of women. Many of these women are from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and many of them have had firsthand experience of exploitation, underpayment and unsafe conditions. After the merger, the textile, clothing and footwear sector moved into the CFMEU's offices. One of the union secretaries told the Age newspaper about first meeting with the CFMEU. I quote: "It was a male-dominated space," she recalls. "He just went on this big rant and there was fear if anyone tried to say anything it would have just got a lot worse." We know who 'he' is, don't we? We do know that, don't we? 'He' is John Setka, of course, the Victorian State Secretary of the CFMEU—and you wonder why your membership's dropping. It was at this meeting that John Setka also made remarks about Australian of the Year and domestic violence advocate Rosie Batty. Setka told the meeting Ms Batty's advocacy work had lead to men having fewer rights. The textile, clothing and footwear sector representative said: The Batty statement came towards the end of the meeting. "I just couldn't really believe it,"— she said— "Shocked, wanting to just really get out of the room, I wanted it to finish." But the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union had merged with the CFMEU, and that also meant sharing office space. I'm feeling your pain, ladies. The union rep told the paper: Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building. After these comments were leaked to newspapers, John Setka went after his critics and hired private investigators to bug and follow them—such a pleasant bloke, isn't he? Many quit their positions or were forced out—what a bully. Setka rules the CFMEU with an iron fist. He likes to tell his colleagues: You throw a stone at me and I'll throw a mountain back. The mountain is coming, big boy, I can assure you, and I'm riding on it! Once reports of Setka's comments were known, Sally McManus, Secretary of the ACTU; and Anthony Albanese, the then Leader of the Opposition, called for Setka's resignation. Setka's response was typical of his bullish behaviour: For people to try to portray me as some misogynist pig— which you are— that bashes women is absolutely disgraceful, … I ain't going to wear that; that's just absolute bull … But later, in June 2019, John Setka's attitude to women, specifically to his wife, was revealed following an incident from 2018. Following this incident, Victorian police charged Setka with 30 domestic violence charges, including recklessly causing injury and a pattern of harassment through breaching court orders and threats—who would have guessed? The arrest included 45 texts in which he called his wife horrible names using hateful, violent language—he obviously has no respect for women, but I think we all worked that out many years ago. Setka, of course, dismissed these texts as, and I quote, a 'few bad text messages'. Shortly after, the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that a former deputy president of the Fair Work Commission, Anne Gooley, gave a statement to the police alleging that Mr Setka repeatedly intimidated and terrified his wife over several months. In her police statement, Anne Gooley said that she had witnessed Mr Setka's treatment of his wife and that: Seeing John's anger … I was extremely distressed. A few weeks before Christmas in 2018, Setka's estranged wife took out an intervention order against him. In sworn statements, she accused Setka of a pattern of violence and a campaign of harassment. She said she was under surveillance, including at home. On the day she got the intervention order, she put a safety device under her front door to stop Setka getting in. Anne Gooley, in her statement, said: 'When John arrived back at the house, he broke the door in while I was sitting in the front room of the house. I yelled out and she, Setka's estranged wife, ran into the downstairs bathroom and locked herself in.' In late August 2019, Setka's estranged wife provided a new sworn statement to police, stating that they had 'started having a verbal argument and it was getting very heated and aggressive'. She said: John was out of control. He hit my head against the table about five times … It was very painful. John is a lot bigger and stronger than me and he can totally physically control me. When he loses his temper, there isn't anything I can do but submit to him. A journalist contacted Anne Gooley about the incident and, in her email response, she described Setka's conduct this way: John's behaviour was not simply a few abusive emails or text messages … His conduct drove my friend out of her home and at one time out of the state. I was not surprised that John did not stand down or that he targeted those who did not support him as I never believed that he had any real insight into his behaviour. It was always someone else's fault or he downplayed his conduct. Anne Gooley sat on the Fair Work Commission full bench that dealt with the ACTU's claim for paid family violence leave, a world-leading entitlement. She said the union movement had made significant progress on the issue of domestic violence but she was concerned about what message was being sent by Setka and his supporters. He is not alone. Welcome to the top of the CFMEU. Nothing's changed. She also said: My concern about their support for John is the message this sends to those in the movement who experience family violence that their experiences will not be believed … It also tells those in the movement who are perpetrators of family violence that their conduct will be condoned. So let's review what I have said. We have a union with thousands of women, many of them from non-English-speaking backgrounds. They want to be able to have a secret ballot to leave the CFMEU—and who can blame them?—to take control themselves. That's what they want. Who in here could in all conscience vote against these women? I would like all of the senators in here to go home and think about that deeply this evening. If your party is telling you to vote against this amendment, I want you to think about how you will feel about betraying these women. All the passionate speeches that I've heard in this place about domestic violence, all the speeches about how women should be empowered to take control over their lives, did you mean them and will you stand by your words for these women? Will you stand by your principles for these women? Will you stand up for these women? These women want to be demerged. I don't want to hear any rubbish tomorrow. I'm putting that amendment up and if, God forbid, after everything that has gone on in the last three or four years up here you don't stand up for these women—that goes for that side over there, the government and the Greens—your credibility will go down the drain just like that tomorrow. So I am putting it to you. I'm coming for that amendment and I want it supported. Give these women the freedom they want. Give them freedom from John Setka. God, we owe them that much. 21:14 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales There's one issue that should be above politics, and that's saving lives. That's what this bill does. It will save lives—the lives of people driving trucks on our roads and transporting goods, people riding bikes or mopeds delivering our meals, people driving cars from point to point, getting us home safely. This bill is about lives and the value we put on lives. Road transport workers have the deadliest job in Australia. At least 54 truck drivers and four gig workers were killed at work in 2023 alone. If that's not enough for the people who oppose this bill, then consider the 177 other road users who were killed in truck crashes last year. That could be you. It could be your mate. It could be your family. You could be driving home from work or doing the school run and be in the wrong place at the wrong time: you come across a truck driver who hasn't slept in days because they cannot afford to have a proper rest. At the Senate inquiry into this bill we heard from a lot of transport workers. One person, Rob Ireland, who has worked in the transport industry for 30 years, told me during the inquiry—and this has stuck in my mind—that breaching fatigue laws 'was literally the difference between having work or being let go'. He said: For about 12 years … I would work without stopping, Sunday through to Saturday. To stay awake on the road, I turned to methamphetamines. … eight hours of sleep a week is what I lived on … Once I was awake for 13 days straight. … Another time I thought I had run off the highway because I had fallen asleep. I sat bolt upright and grabbed for the gearstick and the steering wheel. My wife grabbed my face and let me know I was in my bed. I dreamt I had fallen asleep at the wheel. Rob's story is not unique. If you speak to just about any truckdriver in the country they'll have a similar story or they'll know others who have similar stories. In trucking you compete on what runs you can get down, done cheaply and in the shortest possible time. That means cutting out sleep, cutting out rest breaks, skimping on truck maintenance and sometimes taking stimulants and taking other risks, all to keep afloat. Since the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was abolished in 2016 more than 1,100 people have died in truck crashes. That's more than double the number of Australians who lost their lives in the Vietnam War. When something isn't working as intended you don't throw the whole thing out and leave an unregulated race to the bottom. You fix it. Since 2016 there has been nothing propping up this industry. Without a floor, there's always someone more desperate who will promise to deliver goods more cheaply and more quickly. What this bill does is very simple. The industry came together with the Fair Work Commission and set minimum standards. That's what this bill suggests. They can collectively say, 'Enough is enough, and none of us want to be pressured to the point where we have blood on our hands.' It holds the big businesses at the top of these supply chains fully accountable. We are prepared to do that. Are those on the opposite side, the Liberals and the Nationals, prepared to do that? This bill is supported by every road transport employer, employer group in transport or owner-driver association, including groups that campaigned for the RSRT, the last tribunal to be abolished, eight years ago. They support this bill because they recognise that the massacre that's taken place on our roads since then cannot go on. They want to compete on a fair playing field on productivity and innovation, rather than on who can squeeze the most driving hours into a day. Cameron Dunn, the managing director of the mid-size transport company FBT Transwest, told the inquiry: This is the first time in my 37 years in the industry that I've seen the industry come together and actually be on the same page … the top of the supply chain … needs to be held accountable …We don't want it to be a race to the bottom … Mr Dunn said: … this bill … will hold the economic decision-maker to account … As Mr Dunn and others in the industry recognised, this bill is about backing good businesses. It's about backing safe businesses. It's about backing good businesses that do the right thing. There were 347 insolvencies in the transport industry last year, because the commercial pressures from the top of the chain are so extreme. When all the employer, owner-driver and employee groups in the road transport sector are on board, why are the Liberals and Nationals opposed? Who are they actually representing? They're only representing multinationals like Aldi at the top the chain, who profit from the rivers of blood on our streets. Then there's gig work. There have been at least 15 gig worker deaths in recent years. I say 'at least' because there has been a track record of these deaths going unreported. Inquiry after inquiry over the last five to six years has found that delivery drivers are earning as little as $6 an hour. Just as in trucking, when you're paid per trip and there are no minimum standards, there is a commercial incentive to take deadly risks. In the inquiry, we heard from Utsav, a Canberra based gig worker, who said: … we're doing … 80 hours—across seven days a week … because we don't get the minimum wage. If the bill is passed, and we get a basic minimum wage, then we will not have to rush for orders … and … these injuries could be prevented … It's so clear and obvious that Uber, Menulog and DoorDash support the need for minimum standards, but those opposite oppose it. It isn't just in the gig industry that this is hurting people. We have heard from platforms in other sectors, including Hireup, Humdrum and Sidekicker, who support minimum standards. But there is one platform, Mable, that opposes these reforms. There's always somebody, isn't there? There is always somebody who wants to go the low road. Mable is the richest care-sector gig platform. It is backed by global private equity funds and has deep links to the Liberal Party. Mable workers regularly earn below the minimum wage for NDIS and aged-care work. When Mable's chair was asked about carers who can't make a living on her platform, she said: Maybe the answer is that small business isn't for them. So Mable is saying that, if you're getting ripped off, it's your own fault for not being savvy enough. In Mable's world, there is no accountability for Mable. They just clip the ticket, and everything is the carer's own fault. Never mind the evidence we received the very same day from Mable carers. One disability support worker on Mable said: … I don't get what I would get as an employee … The witness said: I had to charge lower and lower because clients would negotiate my prices down … I had no money put aside for superannuation. Also … I had to do all the unpaid meet and greets. There's so much pressure to do unpaid work, and you can't claim for travel costs … The jobs aren't safe, too. One client recently was rather heavy. He had a hoist and needed a two-person transfer. But they were asking only for one support worker … There has to be some sort of safety net for us … Another Mable carer told us: … the Mable … rates don't … account for you having a qualification … Lots of people are jumping in and there is lots of competition to beat down wages. …   …   … Without minimum standards who is going to protect our rights? Mable's answer to these highly trained and qualified women is that, if their prices are getting negotiated below the minimum wage, it's their own fault. But it's exactly the same situation we see in trucking, where there's always someone who will work for less. It's a race to the bottom, leaving care workers broken and destitute, and it poses massive safety risks for disabled and elderly Australians. The aged-care royal commission sounded the alarm about Mable, saying their model is not suitable for care work. The inquiry heard the same from disability advocates. Inclusion Australia CEO Catherine McAlpine told us: What we see in the gig economy, particularly, is that workers either have no training or that the training responsibilities end up coming to participants and families … To have minimum qualifications, minimum standards and minimum rates of pay, would increase the quality of supports. On the one side we have workers, unions, disability advocates, academics, the aged-care royal commission, other gig platforms and other care providers all saying we need minimum standards in care work, and on the other side we have one gig platform—Mable—backed by global private equity, arguing, 'Let's rip it up.' I know whose side I'm on. I am on the side of vulnerable Australians and the people who care for them. This bill also undoes the damage the Morrison government did to casual workers on sham contracting. It used to be that, if you wanted to work out whether someone was a casual or a contractor, you would look at the reality of their work arrangements. The long-established legal principle was that, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. As Professor Sean Cooney told the inquiry, that's how the law works in New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany and California. The Morrison government replaced that with a law that said, 'If your employer writes in your contract that you are a casual or that you are a contractor, then that's that. It puts all the power in the hands of the employer to strip away your leave entitlements, strip away your job security and dictate how you work. It was a ridiculous law when it was brought in. It contradicts common sense. It ignores the reality of the bargaining imbalance between employers and their employees. This bill also gives the Fair Work Commission the power to waive the 24-hour notice period a union official has to give an employer to enter a work site in case of suspected wage theft. In December we made wage theft a crime. The Liberals are Nationals voted against it. They're in favour of wage theft because their paymasters down at the Minerals Council are in charge of their position on IR. But here's the thing about workplace rights: if you can't enforce it, it's meaningless. It can be hard for a worker to figure out what they've lost in stolen wages. It's hard to know the exact figure. That's particularly true for vulnerable workers who aren't familiar with their workplace rights, who have insecure jobs and who can be fired or lose shifts if they ask questions. The Fair Work Ombudsman does its best, but they can't be everywhere. In fact, two-thirds of the money it recovered from wage theft in recent years came from self-reports. Only unions have the expertise and the breadth required in officials who are highly trained, highly experienced, have a permit granted by the commission, have passed character tests and are experts on workplace rights. This law means that, if a business is stealing your wages, you can turn to the union for help, and they can inspect your pay records and figure out what's going on. Remember: we're only talking about cases where the Fair Work Commission is satisfied that wage theft may be taking place. The current system gives the wage thief a 24-hour heads up before the union can help. In what other part of the legal system do we give people strongly suspected of a crime a 24-hour head start on the authorities? It's completely ridiculous, and this law closes that loophole. The whole bill closes the loopholes that some businesses have used to drive down wages and make jobs less safe and less secure to compete unfairly with good businesses. This bill is a cost-of-living bill. This bill will save businesses. This bill will save lives, and it must be passed. 21:29 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. There is nothing more to say about this bill than that it is a bad bill for Australia. In fact, it is disastrous. Senator Sheldon just used the saying, 'If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.' Well, I tell you what, there is a far more apt saying about this bill, and that is: 'You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.' This bill does not fool anybody. You can dress it up in all of the pious things that have been said on the other side of the chamber—as if there's only one side of this chamber that has compassion for Australians. You can be as pious as you like, but nothing will change the fact that this week the Prime Minister lost the confidence of the Australian people because his word is no longer his bond. It is a sad, sad day for this parliament and, I actually think, for our democracy because not only have we lost trust in a prime minister whose word is no longer his bond but we now have an enormous bill before this place, the place of scrutiny, that has been rushed through. We've got amendments. We've got detail in there that has been done as part of a dirty, rushed deal with two crossbenchers, and those on this side of the chamber have not even seen those changes, which are now being guillotined through this place tonight and tomorrow. I cannot think, in the last 10 years, of a more shameful lack of transparency, lack of honesty and lack of accountability to the Australian people in the house of scrutiny and review, the Senate. The Albanese government's so-called closing the loophole 2.0 bill will not make life easier, contrary to what Senator Sheldon has just said. I challenge him and I challenge Senator Ghosh, who's now in this chamber, to find me one single businessperson in Western Australia, small business or large. You go. I challenge Senator Ghosh to find one person, somebody in a small business at the local shops, who will stand up and actually understand the 26 steps that Senator Scarr so clearly went through. He's a lawyer. He's an employment lawyer, and it took him three hours to figure out the steps he had to work through under this bill to determine if somebody is a casual employee or not. It is an absolute disgrace. As I said, there will not be a single business. In fact, if they had been listening over the past few months, they would know that there is not an organisation that represents small businesses and industries across all sectors that has not been begging and pleading for this not to be rushed through, to be guillotined and to be subject to dirty closed deals with those on the crossbench who suddenly think that their scrutiny is the only scrutiny that now needs to be done on big and complex bills. It is shameful. Why is this bill so bad? With what we've actually been able to scrutinise so far in this bill, why is it so bad for Australians and, in particular, Western Australians? As Senator Scarr has said, it is impossibly complex. The government has made sure we don't even have time to actually ask them the questions in committee. Do they actually understand what the answers to the questions are? I can bet you anything that, if any of those opposite had been asked in committee tomorrow and had had the time to explain how small business works out the definition of casualisation and a casual staff member, not one of them would have been able to sit there and go through the 26 steps. It is impossibly complex. There is far too much uncertainty, which, again, those opposite are hiding from the scrutiny of this place. That's the first thing. It also adds additional costs to business. It is complete fantasy for those opposite to say that, with the cost-of-living crisis they have already imposed on the Australian people, somehow they think this is going to reduce the cost of living for small businesses, the majority of which are families who have got business mortgages and home mortgages, increased prices in just about everything and rising inflation. Now, all of a sudden, they're going to be hit with additional costs and complexity through this. It is a disgrace. The third reason is not just that it's making those businesses, small businesses in particular, pay more for the cost of doing business but—what are they going to do?—they're going to have to pass on the cost to their customers, which many small businesses really don't have the option of doing because they've already had to raise the cost of their goods and services in line with the cost-of-living increases from those opposite. Those opposite have also said that it will increase productivity. What rubbish. Any economist or anybody in business knows that these union demands will actually decrease productivity, and decrease it significantly, and that does nothing to help put more jobs into our market. It does nothing to enhance competition, which is the lifeblood of our small, medium and large businesses. And it risks Western Australian jobs. You have to know that. It risks jobs in Western Australia and across the rest of the nation. The only ones to benefit from this are Labor's union paymasters. The only ones to benefit from this are the most militant trade unions in this nation. It's not Australian workers. This bill also will be so destructive because it will institutionalise conflict in our workplaces. In workplaces, particularly small workplaces, where employers have worked together with their employees in great harmony and cooperation, this will impact on them negatively. The Labor government in their speeches today have also claimed that the bill has made concessions for businesses. What rot. There is not a single business or business organisation that would be able to identify any redeeming features in this. The Labor government has failed to demonstrate in any way how these new laws will make it easier for businesses to employ people, how they will make it easier to create a higher skilled workforce, how they will actually increase productivity or how they will raise living standards when they're putting more pressure on families and businesses that are already suffering so much from the cost-of-living increases under those opposite since they've come to government. They've talked about it, they've claimed it, but there has not been one shred of evidence of how this will improve the life of a single Australian. As Bran Black, the CEO of the Business Council of Australia, said, 'Unfortunately, these changes do not address the significant concerns of Australian businesses and they will make our economy less productive and make casual employment and pay uncertain' for over 2½ million Australians. During the summer break, back in Perth, I visited many local businesses and they all shared the same concerns. They were asking me—and a number begged me—to urge this government to stop or amend this disastrous bill for them. These measures are designed pretty much to do two things, and it's pretty clear what they are. One is to grow union membership, which has been declining for years because people have chosen not to join unions. It is also designed to give unions effective control of our national economy in the same way that unions now completely control those opposite and the Albanese government. Gig workers, casual employees, tradies, sole traders, independent contractors—what do all these people have in common? The answer is that none of these groups have any real interest in joining the union movement, and until this point it has been their free will not to join. This is a direct attack on their freedoms. We've seen this week in WA what damage the union movement can do. The CFMMEU has struck a 25 per cent pay deal with Multiplex, which has significant implications for the construction and building industry in Western Australia, which is already under significant financial pressures. This will mean that building costs will be passed on to consumers, and it will put even further out of reach homes for first home buyers in Western Australia, at a time when so many building companies are already going out of business because they literally cannot afford to do business anymore. As Innes Willox, the Australian Industry Group Chief Executive, said: They are out of whack with where inflation is trending, have no clear productivity trade-offs and fly in the face of the RBA's hope for wage moderation to help fight inflation over the longer term … The CFMEU will now obviously push to replicate these increases across the sector … Significant parts of the construction sector are now under real stress and big pay increases will only add to greater volatility. This deal will inflate our economy, and inflation is something which we and anybody with a mortgage or who goes to the grocery store every week know only too well. I'll quote Jennifer Westacott, the former chief executive of the BCA, about this bill. She said: These changes will create confusion and extra costs for consumers, make it harder to hire casual workers and create uncertainty for employing anybody. Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this. They should not add cost and complexity at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills. We on this side of the chamber firmly believe that enterprise bargaining should be the cornerstone of our workplace relations system. It is necessary in order for us all to grow our pay packets, to improve job security, to bolster the flexibility that employees have come to demand and expect and to boost productivity for our nation's economy. Australia needs a modern workplace relations system that delivers a safety net for workers, recognises the shared interests of managers and workers in an enterprise's success and gives all enterprises the agility they need to compete and succeed. Any changes, we believe, must be designed to improve productivity, grow wages and enhance competition. They are the ingredients of a successful economy which allows people to be employed, have secure employment and have flexibility in their family lives and in their personal aspirations, but none of these are things that we see in this current bill. Shame on those opposite for what they are about to unleash on Australia. I'll finish on this: probably the most egregious part of Labor's bill is the new definition of 'casual employment' that will replace the existing definition in the Fair Work Act. There are 25, if not 26, steps that a small business, such as a lunch bar owner, wanting to put on a casual will now have to go through. None of those opposite, as I said earlier, would be able to stand up here right now and even explain what those 26 steps are. How do you expect a small, struggling businessperson to do that when all they want to do is employ a casual worker—a student, a parent or somebody else who's looking for flexibility—who wants to come and work a few hours a week for them? Despite all the rhetoric from the Albanese government and the union movements about a casualisation epidemic, the facts are clear: this works for millions of Australians, and you are taking away their choice. Shame on you for this bill. 21:44 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria We always knew that those opposite were the party of low wages, so I'm entirely unsurprised that they are disappointed about the 25 per cent pay increase that unions have secured for their workers in WA. It's excellent work by the CFMMEU. Workers should absolutely be getting a pay rise. I'm entirely unsurprised that that rhetoric has come from the party of low wages. What I'm gobsmacked about is that they're blocking legislation that will save lives. Shame on you! There's no evidence, apparently. Well, the mighty Transport Workers Union are in town. If those opposite have the guts to sit down with the Transport Workers Union and hear directly from businesses and workers alike, you will hear all the evidence that you need to support this bill. The rubbish that has come from the other side is exactly that—nothing but rubbish. This legislation has support from workers and businesses, big and small. All you have to do is sit with the workers and businesses that have been at parliament over the last couple of days, and you will hear exactly that. I had the privilege of sitting in a room today and hearing from workers, and I will get to that in a second. I just want to say that this bill is a real chance to make a difference in some of Australia's deadliest workplaces. Safety, security and fair pay are crucial to every worker, no matter what job you do, no matter what industry you are employed in. This is something Labor has always believed. And how could you not? It is something that we will always fight for, and I am proud to be on this side of the chamber fighting for it. We will always fight for the hardworking people of Australia. We're proud of our roots in the union movement and we're proud to bring this bill before the chamber today. This bill, as it says in its name, is about closing the loopholes that undercut pay and conditions for workers. It is absolutely amazing that those opposite aren't supporting that—then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. It will implement the necessary steps to protect and strengthen hard-fought industrial rights and protections. This bill comes out of decades of research and advocacy from the TWU, including two national truck convoys in all capital cities across Australia last year. It was so powerful to see the convoy of passionate and committed transport workers and industry organisations embark from Docklands in Melbourne and travel across the West Gate Bridge, their trucks plastered in orange 'Transport reform now' signs from the TWU members, joined by hundreds of trucks nationwide, uniting behind the opportunity that is currently before this the chamber. There's no denying that transport is the most crucial industry for Australia. We know that, without transport workers, Australia stops. We saw that so plainly through the pandemic. Despite how critical these workers are to every Australian, our current laws simply do not do transport workers justice. We know that there is a direct link between road transport standards and the risk of accidents and serious road related injuries. Senator Reynolds should maybe do a little bit of homework. The absence of minimum standards means employee drivers often feel pressured to speed to meet unrealistic tight deadlines, drive past legal hours and skip mandated rest breaks. As a result, transport remains the deadliest industry in Australia. Last year 231 Australians, including 54 truck drivers, were killed in truck crashes, leaving behind devastated families and communities—incredibly heartbreaking. And already, in the first two weeks of 2024, five Australians had been killed in truck related fatalities. It's a race to the bottom, and it's costing lives. We've got to do better. This is an opportunity to do just that. This bill seeks to allow the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards to ensure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable, and viable. These minimum standards can be made by a Fair Work Commission expert panel for the road transport industry, informed by advice from a road transport advisory group and its subcommittees, once established. I've heard from countless truckies that this legislative reform is vital for the protection of decent jobs and decent employers. It is brilliant to see the road transport industry uniting behind transport reform and the need to improve safety and security across the industry because, when that happens, everybody wins. The Albanese Labor government is serious about improving the conditions of transport workers. We must act on a decade-long fight for safe rates for road transport drivers, because every worker deserves to go home safe, especially those who are on our roads every day, delivering the essential goods that our nation needs. In recent years, digital ride share and food delivery platforms like Uber, also known as the gig economy, have became commonplace across Australia. But the cost of flexibility and convenience is too high when it comes at the expense of gig workers' basic rights and protections. By employing drivers and food delivery riders as independent contractors and not as employees, big gig platforms can subject these workers to low pay, job insecurity, and unsafe and unsustainable standards. This bill will put an end to this by extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission to set and enforce minimum for employee-like workers. When setting minimum standards, the commission will be required to consult with key stakeholders and consider a range of factors, such as the type of work, the preferences of gig workers and the impacts of standards on consumers or business viability. Further to this, the bill will ensure that gig workers have the same industrial rights as any other worker in Australia, including the right to make collective agreements with digital Labor platforms and dispute unfair deactivation. I want to acknowledge the many brave gig workers and their families who have courageously shared their experiences in their pursuit of lifting standards across the entire transport industry. I know how traumatic it can be to share your trauma over and over again, and they've done that to get help progress, and get support for, this bill in this parliament. In my home state of Victoria, Mughda was a Foodara delivery rider before the gig company left Australia, owing millions in backpay to their workers. On her first shift, Mughda was hit by a car and left unconscious on the road. She suffered injuries to most of her body and lower back, and continues to experience chronic pain today. But, cruelly, Foodara denied Mughda workers compensation because current laws fail to consider her an employee of the gig platform. As a result, she has been forced to stop both work and study. I heard today about the long-term impact that has had on both her physical and mental health as well as the aspirations that she had for where she wanted to be in her life now. Stories like Mughda's are far too common. Every year an average of 150 delivery riders are seriously injured in the unregulated gig economy. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Stewart. The time for contributions on this debate today has expired. Senate adjourned at 21 : 53