DOCUMENTS

2024-02-08 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 8 February 2024

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Andrew McLachlan CSC ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BILLS 1 BILLS Australian Education Amendment (Save Our Public Schools) Bill 2023 1

Australian Education Amendment (Save Our Public Schools) Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise today in favour of the Australian Education Amendment (Save Our Public Schools) Bill 2023. This bill would replace the so-called cap on the Commonwealth's share of public school funding with a floor. This would mean the education minister must commit 25 per cent as a minimum towards the bilateral funding agreements with states and territories. For too long public schools have fallen through the cracks, with neither the states nor the federal government interested in, or capable of, delivering 100 per cent schooling resource standard funding. Let's be very clear about what the schooling resource standard is: it's the absolute bare minimum of funding. The SRS is only designed to get 80 per cent of students across the line; we're not reaching for the stars here. This bill would also introduce an obligation on the education minister to ensure that every school-aged child in Australia has access to a fully funded government school. It's common sense. The community expects the education minister to ensure every child gets the education they deserve, and our bill makes this his job. I've brought this bill into the parliament today because we can't wait a moment longer. Teachers, students, parents and carers can't wait a moment longer. Today, the Australian Education Union, the Australian Council of State School Organisations, the Australian Government Primary Principal Association, the Australian Secondary Principals Association, the Australian Special Education Principals Association, the Australian Primary Principals Association and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Principals Association have come together to demand that the Prime Minister fulfil his election promise to end the underfunding crisis and deliver 100 per cent of funding to public schools. And that starts by lifting the Commonwealth contribution to a minimum of 25 per cent. That's what this bill does today. Labor could answer these cries and pass this bill right now. Labor could commit to 25 per cent. Labor could commit to ending the tax depreciation rort exploited by the states. Labor could commit to the first step in ending this crisis. Governments like to pretend this stuff is hard, but it's actually quite simple: increase the funding share of the Commonwealth to at least 25 per cent and close the accounting loophole that lets states contribute less than their full commitment. The legislated 20 per cent cap is a coalition relic which lets Labor off the hook. It's clear that many states and territories are unable, or unwilling, to meet their funding obligations. But, with this so-called cap in place, the federal government can simply shrug its shoulders. We have seen a decade of decay and rot set into our public schools. We have seen story after story of what this rot has done to education. Buildings are falling apart and riddled with mould. Teachers are working incredibly long days and digging into their own pockets to pay for classroom basics. There are unprecedented levels of workload intensification and stress. Kids are prevented from attending field trips and excursions because neither parents nor the schools can afford it. We are at a critical juncture. Do we continue down this pathway, continuing to watch our public schools limp along, with millions of kids left behind? Public education should be the bedrock of a healthy and vibrant democracy. Quality education is a launch pad for so many terrific and wonderful things. It opens doors. It envelops kids in a community and allows them to experiment with their interests. For this reason, every single child in this wealthy country should be afforded access to a free and high-quality education. Yet, time and time again, we've seen Labor and the coalition fail to show up for our kids. It's no secret what's happening—98 per cent of public schools in the country are underfunded. Every year, public schoolkids are robbed of $6.6 billion. That means schools don't have the money to pay for the bare minimum level of staffing and educational resources that they need. Under existing funding arrangements, the federal government meets its 20 per cent commitment, but most states and territories are not paying their 80 per cent share and, on current trajectories, they never will. We have an absurd situation where the federal government, with vastly more revenue than the states and territories, is chiefly responsible for subsidising the overfunded private sector. What we've seen over the last few weeks in Western Australia is that pressure works. Pressure from the Greens, the unions, teachers, parents and carers is working. Without this pressure, it's hard to imagine this government lifting its finger on school funding. But we must be crystal clear. Labor's deal with the WA government is not a deal for full funding. It is not even a deal for minimum funding. This is a deal that locks in underfunding until 2029 for 300,000 WA schoolkids. Accounting trickery introduced under the Morrison government means states and territories are able to claim four per cent in non-school costs as part of their contribution to public school funding. That means that, even if this statement of intent produces actual reforms, the WA school system will receive only 96 per cent of its bare minimum of funding. Labor need to be honest and transparent with parents, carers and teachers, and they need to close this loophole in the next round of bilateral agreements. Labor is in power federally and in every mainland state and territory. This is an historically rare opportunity to end a decade of broken pledges and false dawns and deliver on the promise of Gonski once and for all. The Labor government know that they must act on the funding of public schools or join the long list of failed school reformers who came before them. With the review to inform a better and fairer education system recommending 10-year funding agreements, delivering full SRS funding at the start of the next agreement is critical. Otherwise, public schools around the country will struggle through another wasted decade. Labor's capitulation on Gonski locked in a decade of underfunding for public schools and overfunding of private schools. We are now at crisis point. If Labor once again fumble the ball and fail to deliver the funding that public schools desperately need, then they will need to answer to 276 million public school students, their parents, carers and teachers. Public schools have waited long enough for 100 per cent SOS funding, and this bill will help get it done. 09:10 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment (Save Our Public Schools) Bill 2023. I want to start by saying that under the former coalition government we dramatically lifted schools funding from $13 billion in 2013 to a very significant $25 billion in 2022 and largely resolved the so-called funding wars over schools. It is regrettable that we have seen these funding wars erupt. While I appreciate the Greens' position, this is very much a situation of the minister's own making. The Minister for Education, Jason Clare, committed to full and fair funding for public schools. The problem with that commitment is that the Commonwealth is already providing 20 per cent of funding to Australian public schools in accordance with the Gonski funding model. So there is no shortfall of funding from the Commonwealth to public schools whatsoever. And it is correct, as Senator Allman-Payne has just said, that the states are falling very dramatically short in their funding contributions. The Northern Territory is sitting at only 59 per cent of its funding contribution out of 80 per cent. Queensland is 69 per cent. Victoria is 70 per cent. Only the ACT, in fact, has committed and delivered its full funding obligations under the Gonski model. Mr Clare went to the election promising full and fair funding from the Albanese government. This government has now created a funding shambles. We now know that this is another broken promise. The states, quite rightly, interpreted this commitment as the government delivering its increasing share from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. Mr Clare and the Albanese government have led Australian parents, Australian families, Australian students and Australian teachers up the garden path. We've now seen a funding shambles erupt on the minister's watch. There have been big headlines: '$3 billion for public schools', with an offer to take Commonwealth public school funding from 20 per cent to 22.5 per cent. Firstly, implicitly, that is a blatant broken promise. Secondly, within 24 hours five states said to this incompetent minister, who's had nearly two years to sort this out, 'no deal'. We know that this minister was rolled by the states and territories at the last education ministers' meeting in December. He put forward some reforms which he clearly had not done his homework on, and he was comprehensively rolled. Now we have a situation where we have an absolute shambles on our hands created by this incompetent government. So I say: shame on Minister Clare! Shame on the Albanese government! From the very beginning it was clear that this was a smoke-and-mirrors strategy from this government with many, many weasel words—'We're on a pathway to full and fair funding.' What a load of rubbish. All this government has done is duck and weave, and appease the likes of the Australian Education Union. I have to say that I absolutely condemn the Australian Education Union for turning its back on the reforms that we know will make a difference right now. Evidence based teaching is fundamental to turning around our declining school standards. The coalition has long called for evidence-based teaching methods, like explicit instruction, to be mandated in every Australian classroom. Some schools are doing a brilliant job. They are adopting the best evidence-based teaching and they are seeing their NAPLAN results go through the roof. But this minister doesn't have the courage, he doesn't have the guts and he doesn't have the commitment or the passion to drive the reforms that we need right now that we know will not cost a bucketload of money. How do we know that? We know that because schools are doing it right now with the funding envelope that they are operating under—schools like Marsden Road Public School. I name that school in particular because it is an exceptional school led by an exceptional principal, Manisha Gazula, in a low-SES area of Sydney, in Liverpool, where 90 per cent of students are from a non-English-speaking background. This principal has looked at the evidence. She looked at the ridiculous teacher-training that her teachers received at university and the lack of support that they received, not getting the foundations in how to teach numeracy and literacy. She said, 'Well, that's not good enough. I'm going to bring in the professional support these teachers need; I'm going to give them the coaching; I am going to introduce evidence based teaching, including explicit instruction, in my school; and I'm going to turn around the results of our kids.' These are some of the most disadvantaged children in Sydney. The biggest disadvantage children can be given in life is to not learn to read and write. Disadvantage is not defined by a child's postcode. It is defined by poor and ineffective teaching, through no fault of the teachers themselves. How can teachers possibly be expected to excel in the classroom when this ridiculous Education Union is turning its back on all the very best evidence that we know will work? This minister is a smooth talker, but Australian schools deserve a tough operator. A tough operator is needed to deliver the reforms that children in this country so demand because, at the moment, one in three children are failing NAPLAN. Our results are going backwards. I started my contribution by talking about the very significant increase in funding delivered by the coalition when we were in government—from $13 billion to $25 billion. We've actually seen a 60 per cent increase in schools funding over the last two decades, with a corresponding decline in school standards. That is not good enough. It's an embarrassment. On classroom disruption, we are one of the worst countries in the world. Our Program for International Student Assessment results, testing year 10 students, shows that half of all year 10 students tested in the most recent international assessment did not achieve expected standards in maths, and 43 per cent of year 10 students did not meet the grade in reading. So, while the minister has talked a big game on the National School Reform Agreement, we have seen no national agreement and we have seen very little in the way of school reforms. I condemn this government for reigniting the funding wars through its own actions and through misleading Australians—the rubbish of a commitment that it gave. Now it's very clear that this government is not going to deliver full and fair funding, as it says, even though the Commonwealth is delivering its full funding commitment to public schools under Gonski. So Jason Clare has led Australian families up the garden path. This comes at a time when we've seen a full-blown teacher shortage crisis on Jason Clare's watch. There have been some measures announced, but they are lacklustre. The minister is too slow. He's not responding with the urgency that Australian families require. Some 2,000 positions are waiting to be filled right now in New South Wales. More than 1,000 positions are waiting to be filled in Victoria. Some schools are looking for 20 teachers. That's in one school. So this is a dire situation. The really tragic situation that we find is that the Australian Education Research Organisation—an independent and very important body—has done all the work. We know what works. I have, on numerous occasions, commended the New South Wales government for announcing an end to open classrooms, because how can you teach students effectively in a barn with 180 or 200 kids? It doesn't work. This fad, this era of inquiry based learning, of loose learning, as I call it, has not worked. That's why our standards are going backwards. We are betraying this generation of children. The minister should be putting a blowtorch to the universities, who are letting down student teachers. They go into a teaching course thinking they're going to get a great education and they get nothing of the sort. That also is appalling. We did a lot of work in government to deliver the reforms that we need to see for universities to lift their game. Rather than just take those reforms and get cracking with the job, the minister spent another 12 months doing another review which basically concluded with almost the same recommendations that we handed down in government. It's delaying action and letting universities off the hook. That is completely inadequate. It comes at a time when university students and graduates—three million Australians—are staring another massive rise in their students debt in the face—7.1 per cent was the figure by which student debt rose last year due to Labor's skyrocketing inflation. This government talks a big game about tax cuts. What a joke. Three million Australians had their debt increased last year by an average of $1,700 with no action. We know that when you run the economy sensibly and responsibly, as we did—indexation averaged less than two per cent a year under the coalition government—it's a system that works. Under this government, Australian students and graduates, young Australians, including those trying to buy a home, are being gouged by increasing student debt driven by high inflation, which directly equates to high indexation. I say: shame on this minister. We are seeing reports that, while three million Australians are suffering with increased student debt, the minister's department is holding meetings in one-hat fine-dining restaurants. So, rather than holding meetings in meeting rooms with a cup of tea and a biscuit, he is presiding over a department which is rorting taxpayers' money by holding meetings in restaurants, spending thousands upon thousands of dollars. That is simply not good enough. I condemn this government for the funding wars that it has created. This is a funding debacle. And, of course, it comes at a time when this government is now looking fairly at non-government schools. It has failed to rule out that disgraceful Productivity Commission recommendation that deductible gift recipient status be stripped away from non-government schools, which it says will cost the Catholic sector alone $2 billion. That is just another shambles on Jason Clare's watch. 09:25 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales First of all, before I commence, I want to say that I've got a lot of respect for Senator Allman-Payne. I know the passion that she brings to this place for school reform and how genuinely she advocates those views. What the Australian Education Amendment (Save Our Public Schools) Bill 2023 is proposing, however, would commit the government to unilaterally increasing its share of government school funding. It fundamentally ignores the role of the states and territories in these arrangements. Governments, in funding schools that they administer, have to also carry a responsibility. This is part of the federation process that actually occurs within our systems of government across this country. It's a critical role that those negotiations play in making sure that we uplift the states and territories' participation, enrolment and policy approaches to schools funding. Part of the school funding arrangements means that changes in school funding or arrangements in school funding need an intergovernmental discussion, state by state, territory by territory, because that's how the federation works. It's not as simple as just saying, 'Do this and in return we get a better system.' It is not that simple. Of course money plays a role, and that's a critical piece that every government has played in making sure that we do get changes. The Gonski support that this government and previous iterations of Labor governments have taken up in support of improved funding is critical in terms of making sure that we have better outcomes in our schools. The government's taking critical steps towards fairer funding through the O'Brien review and the upcoming negotiation of the National School Reform Agreement for 2025. That's a fundamental process of making sure that we get it all right. Funding models, funding arrangements and navigating state and territory engagement are critical pieces of making sure that we get the whole cake made, that we get the ingredients right, and that, when it's baked and it rises, it rises for everybody. Currently, no public school outside the ACT is at the full and fair funding level. As we know, the Albanese government remains committed to working with states and territories so that every school has 100 per cent of fair funding levels in the next National School Reform Agreement. We're committed to that. We've said that on numerous occasions. The bill that's proposed by the Greens would commit the government to unilaterally increasing its share of government school funding while ignoring the role of the state and territory governments in funding schools that they administer and the established process of the National School Reform Agreement. This is a process through which funding can be tied to agreed reforms. That's the critical piece. This is the way that you actually get agreed reforms. That's what a federation does. That's why we are in a federation. That's how the federation works. The Commonwealth is currently negotiating with the states and territories on the next National School Reform Agreement. We are using this opportunity to ensure that the funding the Commonwealth provides to states and territories is tied to reforms which will make our education system better and fairer. The Productivity Commission found that the equity gap in schools widened under the coalition's schools agreement signed by the member for Cook. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds were found to be three times more likely to be behind. Eighty-six thousand students didn't meet either the basic literacy or the basic numeracy standard. It's clear that students, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, were being left behind under the coalition's schools agreement. It requires a sophisticated, thoughtful and appropriate approach to make sure that we rectify those mistakes that were made so glaringly by the coalition. The Albanese government is determined to make the Australian education system better and fairer for everybody. Sitting suspended from 09:30 to 11:00 Senator SHELDON 168275 As I was saying before, the Productivity Commission found that the equity gap in schools widened under the coalition's school agreement signed by the member for Cook. It's clear that students, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, were being left behind under the coalition's school agreement. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds were three times more likely to be left behind. Eighty-six thousand students didn't meet either the basic literacy standard or the numeracy standard. The Albanese government is determined, as I said before, to make the Australian education system better and fairer. The Albanese government are making meaningful progress towards our commitment to work with states and territories to get every school to a hundred per cent of its fair funding level. On 31 January 2024 Minister Clare signed a statement of intent with the Western Australian Minister for Education, committing to fund all Western Australian government schools to a hundred per cent of the SRS and implementing reforms as part of the next NSRA. These are significant changes. This is actually Labor delivering on what it committed to do. This is righting those wrongs that were done under the Morrison government. This is about disadvantaged students now getting a leg-up from the Labor Albanese government in cooperation with the states. And this is not the end of the project. This is an important part of the pathway of the project—our ambition and our desire and our determination to make sure that we deliver on those commitments that we've made for a hundred per cent of the SRS to be delivered. The Australian government will invest, in the case of Western Australia, an additional $777.4 million over 2025 to 2029 in Western Australian public schools from 2025. Under that agreement, the most disadvantaged schools will reach full and fair funding first in 2025. We are delivering. Every child in Western Australia will attend a fully funded school in 2026. I'd like to commend the Western Australian government for taking up this historic agreement with the Albanese government. It's a momentous achievement for both governments which will help students from all backgrounds achieve their full potential. Importantly, the National School Reform Agreement will tie funding to reforms to improve outcomes. That's critical. That's why you do negotiations with states, that's why you reach agreements—because it's a shared responsibility between the parties, between our very states and between the states and the government nationally. These are critical reforms that take place across our states and territories, and to have reform in this space you have to be able to reach agreement. Western Australia's been a trailblazer in that important step forward that we've committed to and that we've delivered in Western Australia and committed to delivering across the country. Importantly, as I say, the National School Reform Agreement will tie funding to reforms to improve outcomes. That is the fundamental, critical thing. That's one of the reasons I'm opposed to this proposition put forward by the Greens—because we have to actually make sure that we have tied funding to reforms to improve outcomes. That's a shared discussion, that's a shared negotiation and that's a shared ambition to make sure that we deliver together with the states, in cooperation. Specific reforms are subject to negotiations with each of the states and territories. By tying funding to reform, the next schools agreement is our opportunity to make our education system better and fairer. It's fundamental. You've got to get the parties into a room. You've got to have those negotiations. You've got to talk it through. You've got to reach those ambitions together. And you've got to have the form on how those reforms work. We're tying the funding to reforms, as per Minister Clare's announcement on 29 March 2023 about the review to inform a better and fairer education system. He said that the reforms will be focused on driving real and measurable improvements for students and will further support student outcomes and wellbeing. The review was published on Monday 11 December 2023 and has advised on key reforms related to equity, wellbeing and teacher workforce. These are significant pieces of change that need to be, and are being, appropriately negotiated with the states and territories. I repeat: they are being delivered. In Western Australia, they are being delivered in the form and the format that has been clearly spelt out between the two governments. There is $777.4 million over 2025 to 2029 in additional investment and funding going to Western Australian schools. The Australian government is committed to ensuring that every child has access to high-quality education. As part of this, the Australian government is working with state and territory governments to get every school to 100 per cent of its fair funding level. This will ensure that every school is appropriately resourced to provide a high-quality education to all students, to make sure that we pick up those failures from the previous coalition government, to make sure that we have the opportunities for all Australians, including disadvantaged Australians, so that we can rise all boats in the Australian education system and make sure the opportunities for our teachers are more and more robust and we are dealing with the challenges that many in the teacher workforce have. The agreement reached with the Western Australian government is a landmark moment for public education. I'm sure that the senators representing Western Australia—and we heard comments earlier from beside me—are pleased to hear that the Albanese government, with that investment, will make those real changes. The bill being proposed by the Greens would see the Commonwealth increase its share of the SRS from 20 per cent to 25 per cent in one year for government schools, without transition. That does not make sense. If you want to get the reforms that many of us want—and there is lots of common ground that we have within this place—then you have to tie the transition funding proposed in the National School Reform Agreement together. You have to tie it together. You don't simply go off and say, 'Here's the amount in one year, 20 to 25 per cent.' That's where the parties come together and have those proper discussions. Let's make sure those discussions take place. Let's make sure that the Western Australian program is an example of what can occur elsewhere. The next National School Reform Agreement will make sure the funding is tied to the sorts of things we need in our schools that will help our kids to learn and to realise their full potential. The reforms this agreement will implement will make a huge difference to the students, schools and families in Western Australia. These reforms will mean that students are more likely to catch up and stay caught up, closing the education gap. They are crucial to maximising Australia's potential and preparing for the country's future. These are fundamental, important steps. As we said to some of the comments from the coalition, this government is absolutely committed to working collaboratively with each state and territory to achieve full and fair funding for schools. But, to reach the goal, the Commonwealth needs to chip in. States need to chip in. We need to work together to get the job done, and I'm confident that we can do that. Unlike the coalition, we are more interested in delivering outcomes than in picking fights and placing blame. The former coalition government was notorious for pushing the job onto someone else. That's not our approach. We're making sure that these reforms and these opportunities are done in cooperation with the states while we incentivise those sorts of arrangements, as we've seen in Western Australia. We've seen that people can have those hard conversations to come up with the right answers to deal with disadvantage, deal with opportunity and deal with the future. The former coalition government was notorious for pushing jobs onto someone else. This government is determined to make the education system better and fairer across the board. For schools this means achieving full and fair funding and tying the funding to reforms that will close the education gap, improving student wellbeing and attracting and retaining a stronger teacher workforce. The coalition claim that funding won't fix the issue. Funding alone won't make our education system better and fairer, but that is why we are tying funding to reforms in the next National School Reform Agreement. (Time expired) 11:10 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put on the second reading of the Australian Education Amendment (Save Our Public Schools) Bill 2023.

The Senate divided. [11:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. 26 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:16 The PRESIDENT 112096 It being after 11.15, I will move to formal motions. NOTICES 7 NOTICES Presentation 7 COMMITTEES 7 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 7 Report 7 11:17 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the first report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1 OF 2024 8 February 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1 OF 2024 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 7.40 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 March 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 November 2024 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (c) the provisions of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 March 2024 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Australian Education Amendment (Save Our Public Schools) Bill 2023 Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023 National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023 Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 8 February 2024 Appendix 1 S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To carefully investigate this legislation and provide interested stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: A range of stakeholders and interested parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): February Possible reporting date: 14 March 2024 Print name: Wendy Askew Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to ref er a bill to a committee Name of bill: Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024 Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: To examine the bill in more detail and hear from various stakeholders. Possible submissions or evidence from: Human rights organisations First Nations organisations and individuals Australian Human Rights Commission Attorney General's Department Legal experts Academics Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): May to September 2024 Possible reporting date: 13 November 2024 (signed) Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member Senator Thorpe Appendix 3 S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To carefully investigate this legislation and provide interested stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: A range of stakeholders and interested parties including from the Communications sector. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): February Possible reporting date: 14 March 2024 Print name: Wendy Askew Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move the following amendment: At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 March 2024". The government supports the referral of these bills to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee with a reporting date of 13 March. These bills will abolish the AAT and replace it with a new administrative review body that is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. Over nine years, the Liberals stacked the AAT with as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates without any merit based selection process, including some individuals with no relevant experience or expertise. The AAT's public standing was irreversibly damaged as a result of the actions of the previous government. The bills have been informed by significant consultation over a year, including guidance from an expert advisory group led by the former High Court justice the Hon. Patrick Keane AC KC and engagement over many months with AAT staff and members, AAT users, peak bodies, legal assistance providers, advocates and other experts. These bills are also currently the subject of an inquiry by the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, and there is no reason why the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee cannot complete its inquiry by 13 March. Despite this, the Liberal Party want the Senate committee to take until July to consider these bills. We all know why the Liberal Party is voting to delay these bills for as long as possible by delaying the committee process—because they are protecting their stack. But what is particularly shocking today is the fact that the Greens are joining them. Our understanding is the Australian Greens will join with the Liberal Party to disrupt and delay these generational reforms that implement key recommendations of the robodebt royal commission and which are directed at ensuring that nothing like robodebt ever happens again. This is a terrible betrayal of the tens of thousands of people who need to seek independent reviews of government decisions that have major and sometimes life-altering impacts on their lives—decisions such as whether an older Australian receives an age pension, whether a veteran is compensated for a service injury or whether a NDIS participant receives funding for essential support. We are committed to restoring trust and confidence in Australia's system of administrative review, bringing with it the establishment of a new administrative review body that is user focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. We are committed to this reform. I'm hopeful that senators in this place will come to their senses and change their minds about the amendment they are about to put, and that we can get the support of the majority of this chamber for a referral for a report by 13 March 2024. 11:21 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move an amendment to the government amendment: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 July 2024." 11:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I want to respond to the comments made by Senator Gallagher. You'd think that this government, based on the comments made, was giving the Senate adequate time to review what is a very complex piece of legislation. The irony of what Senator Gallagher said is not lost on me, because, when this part of the day finishes, guess what we're about to do, colleagues? Yet again, in typical Labor style, bang—we're going to guillotine another piece of legislation. They're going to slip in today an amendment that until last night nobody had actually seen. This is a government, colleagues, that—just remember—talked big about transparency prior to the election; I'll go through shortly the words the Prime Minister liked to utter on a regular basis. Since they have been elected they have used their numbers in this place—and to those journos who are saying the IR legislation is a huge win for Labor, I suggest you look at the numbers that Labor deals with in the Senate now. It is hardly a big thing to get your legislation through, particularly given the numbers we dealt with when we were in government—at least 10 crossbenchers across the spectrum. Today we're going to jump in with the Greens and support the Greens here. Why are we supporting the Greens' amendment on this? Because they actually, like us, want to review this legislation properly. This is a huge piece of legislation. The AAT has directly fed into it around 400 pieces of legislation. In terms of the stakeholders I have already spoken to, I can tell you they are not in any way over this legislation. There is need for improvement in the AAT. We tried to improve it over successive governments. It is a huge tribunal—one that makes very serious decisions. Ramming this legislation through the parliament without the proper scrutiny from the Australian Senate is an affront to the actual piece of legislation and goes against everything this government said it would do prior to the election in relation to transparency. We'll get onto the Attorney-General of Australia shortly because, I tell you, he still likes to talk to this day about transparency, yet he is the one minister in this government who, when it comes to transparency, just likes to use the numbers and push things through the Senate with little to no review. The role of the Australian Senate is very basic. It's taught in politics 101 classes. In fact if you asked a year 10 student in school to write about it they'd tell you the basic role of the Australian Senate is to be a house of review. We actually take that role seriously, particularly given the fact that the government uses its numbers in this chamber to ram through piece after piece after piece of legislation. The average Australian doesn't know what the government's doing in this place. But guess what? Over the next few months and years, they will feel the impact of the legislation across the board, portfolio by portfolio, that this government, by using its numbers in the Senate, is ramming through this place with little to no scrutiny. That is actually dangerous. The role of the Senate is to understand the impact of legislation. It is to understand whether or not the legislation that is being put forward, in this case, is actually going to make the system better or, as the case may well be, make the system worse. That's all we want to do. That's all we and the Australian Greens want to do, and the Australian Greens and I are not often in the same place. I tell you that, in the interests of transparency, in the interests of discharging our role as the Australian Senate and in the interests of those people who are actually affected by decisions of the AAT, we need to take this seriously. We need to stand up to Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, and stand up to Mr Dreyfus, the Attorney-General, and say to them: 'No, we're not going to cop this. We're actually going to do our job and review this legislation.' 11:26 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales It is deeply unfortunate to hear the kind of rhetoric we heard from the government on what should be careful, considered and, I would have hoped, cross-party support for major institutional reform. Let's be clear what the bill does. It tears down—and there are some rational reasons to do it—a very core pillar of our legal and administrative decision-making framework. It totally abolishes it and replaces it with a new body. You don't do that lightly. You don't do it with an inquiry that runs over Christmas on a government dominated lower house committee where key stakeholders like the Law Council say: … it remains very concerned that the Committee's truncated inquiry period will undermine or diminish the democratic and proper scrutiny of the Bills. That's not my position or the Greens' position. That's the position of the Law Council, and it was shared by a series of key stakeholders about a government inquiry that basically started on Christmas Eve and ended on Australia Day. That's the worst possible process for major institutional reform. Now the Attorney, through the minister here, says that they want yet another sham inquiry to finish by 13 March on a committee that doesn't have a spare hearing date between now and 13 March, unless the chair decides to make us sit on the weekend. To suggest that's a good process for fundamental legal reform, which we only get one chance at doing every two or three decades, is genuinely embarrassing. Going to the bill itself, we have the government, the Attorney, saying that they consulted with the sectors in the course of this. They met with them, but they didn't listen. There are very, very significant problems with this bill that may in fact, in some circumstances, drive things backwards. One of the most remarkable things about it is that the government says this is all about integrity in the selection and appointment process. We share the government's concerns about the appointment process that happened under the former government without any due process. We share the government's concerns about that, and we never want to see that happen again, but the government's bill makes all the integrity measures discretionary, so a future Attorney can just ignore all the integrity measures that they're putting in this bill and do exactly what the former government did. So to come in here and lecture the Greens on integrity, when you want to abolish a major institution, have a sham inquiry over Christmas and then another sham inquiry after that and then to put forward a bill with discretionary integrity measures—you should be ashamed of yourselves. Not only are there the integrity problems with the bill but also the social security sector has very substantial concerns that tens and tens of thousands of social security claimants are going to lose their tier 1 review rates. That may mean nothing to the government but, when the people struggling to survive on social security are going to be told that their primary review right when they lose an entitlement or have their entitlement docked is going to be abolished by the government with no solution under the table to fix it, that concerns the Greens. And we're not willing to just wash through legislation that takes away fundamental rights for social security claimants—people who are already suffering on benefits that you won't lift. We're not just going to abolish their rights in a fast and dirty inquiry according to your timetable. Similar concerns have been raised within the refugee sector about the reduction of rights for refugee claimants with this bill. So to lecture us on integrity, when you've got a bill that has optional integrity measures, to lecture us on wanting a proper inquiry when you had a sham government dominated inquiry over Christmas and now you want to have another sham inquiry through the Senate, and then to pontificate and pretend you've got the moral high ground—ha! We are open to good-faith negotiations with the government. These are things that can be solved. We can work across the chamber and resolve these things. And, if we can resolve them before 24 July and get excellent legal reform and institutional reform, we are super open to doing that, but we're not going to ride roughshod over key stakeholders, we're not going to ride roughshod over social security claimants, and we're not going to go with the artificial timetable here. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 I've got two amendments. I'm going to put Senator McKim's amendment first. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:36]
(The President—Senator Lines)

40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Pocock, B. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 19 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:38 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee as moved by Senator Gallagher, with the amendment as agreed to by the Senate in the name of Senator McKim, be agreed to. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. BUSINESS 13 BUSINESS Rearrangement 13 11:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business notice of motion No. 462 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 13 NOTICES Postponement 13 11:39 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 13 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 13 11:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I move: That Senator Hanson be granted leave of absence for 8 February 2024, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 13 11:40 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That Senator Fawcett be granted leave of absence for 8 February 2024, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 13 11:40 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Hanson-Young for the period 7 February 2024 to 8 February 2024 inclusive; and (b) Senator Allman-Payne for 7 February 2024. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 13 DOCUMENTS Department of Education 13 Order for the Production of Documents 13 11:41 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than midday on 26 February 2024, the students with disability loadings settings review completed by April 2023, with any associated briefings. 11:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a very short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government won't be supporting this motion, as it seeks materials which go to negotiations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Question agreed to. Schools 14 Order for the Production of Documents 14 11:42 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than midday on 26 February 2024: (a) all documents, advice and correspondence relating to the signed statement of intent between the Commonwealth and Western Australian Government on school funding announced on 31 January 2024, with any associated briefings, agreements or undertakings; and (b) any documents showing the modelling and costs related to the state by state and total cost of the offer to lift the Commonwealth's share of school funding from 20% to 22.5% of the School Recommendation Scheme by 2029, with any associated briefings. 11:42 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 won't be supporting this motion either. The senator seeks information relating to the recent statement of intent between the Commonwealth and the Western Australian government on school funding. This is a significant achievement on the road to full and fair funding of all our public schools. For the information of the Senate, I table the signed statement, which will be published online shortly, and the accompanying media release. The balance of materials sought go to negotiations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Question agreed to. Department Of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, CSIRO 14 Order for the Production of Documents 14 11:43 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Ministers representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for Industry and Science, by no later than 10 am on Tuesday, 27 February 2024, all correspondence sent to any Minister from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and between any Minister and the CSIRO, in relation to Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS). (2) That there be laid on the table by the Ministers representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for Industry and Science, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 28 February 2024, all briefing notes, executive summaries of scientific advice and reports relating to CCUS technology provided to any Minister by the CSIRO. Question agreed to. BILLS 14 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 14

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

Second Reading 14 11:48 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator O'Sullivan be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

32 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. 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. 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. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:52 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [11:52]
(The President—Senator Lines)

34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. 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.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 16 11:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum related to the government amendments to be moved to this bill and an addendum to the revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. 11:55 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Just so everybody is aware of what's about to happen: these are some of the most complex and confusing laws that not just the Australian parliament but businesses across Australia—it doesn't matter what size business; medium businesses, larger businesses. I personally really feel for the small businesses in Australia, the mums and dads of Australia that wake up every single day and merely do what we, as other Australians, ask them to do: to get up in the morning, to open their doors, to run their business, perhaps even to employ some Australians—in other words, give those Australians a job that they can go to. I feel very sorry for them because, in 1½ hours' time, under the 'transparent'—ha-ha, rather ironic, I'm being sarcastic—Albanese Labor government we will actually end the scrutiny of what are, as I said, possibly the most confusing and complex industrial relations laws to ever come before this parliament. You only have to pick up the phone to a small business owner. I've always said Labor wouldn't know a small business owner unless they were trying to shut their business, which is why they're ramming through these laws today. You have only to pick up the phone to a small business in Australia or even just walk into one to know. The first thing they'll say to you is, 'When is this pain going to end?' 'Unfortunately,' I say to them, 'there is only one way now, and that is a change of government, because, you see, we back you every step of the way as the coalition government. But I can't tell you.' I can't tell the small businesses of Australia when the pain inflicted on them by the Albanese government is going to end, because they are now swimming in a sea of red tape, of complexity and, more than that, of confusion that they have never seen the likes of. The bad news for every business in Australia—as I said, ultimately big businesses can take care of themselves, but for small businesses, the backbone of the Australian economy, those who support communities, in particular in rural and regional Australia, each and every day, do you know there are penalties that apply to you if you get this wrong? So you'd better find a good lawyer. That's what I say to them. I don't know where the Albanese government thinks you're going to find the time to actually read what are now hundreds and hundreds of additional pages of complex legislation, bearing in mind this is tranche 3. The first tranche was passed in 2022—and I shouldn't say 'passed'. They had the numbers and rushed it through the parliament. The second tranche went through last year in December. Welcome to 2024. If you thought as a business in Australia that you were drowning under a deluge of red tape, the bad news is it is about to get worse thanks to Prime Minister Albanese. That is his 'happy new year' to businesses across Australia. At the time of a cost-of-living crisis every time you walk into a shop and you go to buy some food, you see it. You walk out with half the amount that you would normally buy, yet you've paid what feels like double the amount. So you've got a cost-of-living crisis, you've got persistently high inflation, you've got businesses struggling with staff shortages and you've got ever-increasing power costs, and what does Labor say to that? 'That's okay because what we will now do for businesses across Australia—the people who employ Australians every day—is make a bad situation worse.' What the Labor Party and Mr Anthony Albanese, as the Prime Minister of this country, simply (a) don't understand and (b) conveniently forget, is this: governments do not create jobs. Any government minister that stands in front of you and says, 'The government has just created X number of jobs,' is admitting to you they have increased the size of the Public Service. But it's the employers of this country, the mums and dads who get up every single morning and go out and sweat blood and tears for this country, who do what we need them to do. They provide us with the services that we want on a daily basis and, more than that, they give other Australians jobs. Governments put in place policy frameworks, and those policy frameworks can have a positive impact. The policy framework that Mr Anthony Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, is implementing—stage 1 has gone through, stage 2 has gone through and stage 3 will go through shortly—is one that affects businesses across Australia. In fact, I talked to a whole lot last night and they said to me, 'Michaelia, we are just tired.' So many of them said to me, 'We actually don't know why we bother, because Labor have just made it too hard for us, and if we don't bother it means we've got to lay off staff.' I said to them, 'I can't disagree with you because, quite frankly, under the Albanese government why would you bother?' Senator CASH I0M That's a good point, Senator Scarr. Under this government, why would you start a new business when you have no rights anymore? The Fair Work Commission now runs your business or, alternatively, the unions run your business. You have no rights in relation to your business. Under the Albanese government, you are no longer allowed to run your business in a way that you and your employees see fit to benefit both of you. This government, with their sweeping reforms—which are structurally changing the way businesses in this country do business—have taken away the right for employers and employees to negotiate together. They are allowing the unions—I'd say 'back into business', but this is just supercharged. For the poor small businesses who've never met a union in their life, the bad news is you'll probably want to go onto Google and work out the ones you're going to meet. But not only that—and I remember standing and asking the minister last time about who decides this and decides that; the bad news is that you'd better find out who the Fair Work Commission in Australia is, and most employers wouldn't know what the Fair Work Commission is, because that body of people are now going to be telling you how to run your business. That's because of Mr Anthony Albanese and his contempt for you and what you contribute to Australia every day. Under Mr Albanese, businesses across Australia better get used to that. Minister, last night the government said it will be accepting the Greens' amendments on the right to disconnect. We haven't had an opportunity, as a parliament, to even look at them. We only saw the amendments last night. The confusion that is currently in the Australian community about the right to disconnect is just overwhelming, yet—bad news everybody—it's going to be going through at 3.30 pm today. So I have a series of questions for you. Does an employee have the right to disconnect from clients calling them after hours? Will the right to disconnect apply to journalists? If a politician's media adviser ignores a call from a journalist wanting a quote at 3 am in the morning—you are based in Western Australia and they are on daylight saving time; alternatively, it's for the Sunday paper—are they able to ignore that call from the journalist because it's 3 am or, alternatively, because it's Sunday? If an employee working on a large deal gets a call from a large multinational overseas client in a different time zone, are they able to say to that client, 'Sorry, it's the weekend in Australia. Please call me at 9:30 am on a Monday'? And if a client keeps calling an employee during their disconnection time, is it the employer's duty to call the client— (Time expired) 12:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not surprised that, even at the very beginning of this debate, Senator Cash is taking the opportunity to wildly exaggerate the implications of this amendment and the government's proposed legislation more generally. As I've noted on many occasions, every time this government attempts to do something to level the playing field when it comes to workplace relations, Senator Cash, more than anyone else, and the coalition in general always make wild claims about what this is going to do to Australia. We saw Senator Cash do that before the secure jobs, better pay bill. We all knew that the real problem for the coalition with the secure jobs, better pay bill was the name, because anything involving secure jobs and better pay had to reflexively be opposed by the coalition. But, in doing so, Senator Cash ran around the press gallery, seeking every interview she possibly could take to make wild sorts of claims that the government's legislation was going to return Australia to the Dark Ages and was going to see all the supermarket shelves in Australia emptied. As I've pointed out on a number of occasions, neither of those things are true. It turns out that Australia remains in 2024, not the Dark Ages, not 800 AD or 900 AD—whichever year you might want to choose as the beginning of the Dark Ages. It turns out we were in 2024 when that legislation was passed, and it turns out that, as a result, Australian workers do have secure jobs and better pay. It turns out that, if you go to a supermarket in Australia, the shelves are not empty. The shelves are full of food, full of milk, full of eggs, full of orange juice—whatever it might be that you choose to buy in an Australian supermarket. The supermarket shelves are not empty, as Senator Cash predicted they would be. Today we are no doubt going to hear more wild claims made by Senator Cash and her colleagues about what the impact of this legislation will be, when, in fact, the implications of this legislation will be to continue the path that Australia has been set on since the Albanese government's previous tranches of industrial law changes were passed, and that is higher wages for Australian workers, lower unemployment, more jobs being created, inflation coming down and less industrial action. I'm sure that, at some point today, we'll see Senator Cash or her coalition colleagues make claims that we are going to see mass unemployment and people losing their jobs. We're going to see claims from Senator Cash and the coalition that we're going to see unemployment go up. We're going to see claims that it'll crash wages. We're going to see claims that it's going to cause industrial conflict. Why I'm confident we'll see those claims is that that's exactly what we've heard from Senator Cash and the coalition every other time that we've attempted to pass workplace law changes. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 I have a point of order. Senator O'Sullivan. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 On relevance, there were some specific questions that were asked on particular scenarios that people are seeking clarity on. There is a guillotine in five minutes time. I'm wondering if you could draw the minister back to the specifics of the question. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The minister is being relevant. He's leading into it. I sat here and listened to, I think, about 11 minutes of speeches before we got to the question. You have the call, Minister. Senator WATT 245759 The reason I'm confident that Senator Cash and her colleagues will make those claims today, as I said, is that they've done that every time we've passed any changes to workplace laws. Every other time, Senator Cash's claims have been proven to be false, and they will again be proven to be false. The specific amendment that we're dealing with here is the right to disconnect. The government does support this amendment to introduce a right for workers to disconnect from work outside of work hours. In practice, this will encourage employers and employees to have conversations about contact out of hours and set expectations that suit the workplace. The amendments introduce a right to disconnect to ensure employees are not required to monitor, read or respond to employer or work related contact out of hours unless refusing to do so is unreasonable. That last proviso—'unless refusing to do so is unreasonable'—is an important proviso that's been added to that. A list of factors will help determine whether an employee's refusal is unreasonable, including the nature of the employee's role and level of responsibility and whether the employee is compensated to remain available to perform work outside of normal working hours. To provide further clarity to workers and business, the Fair Work Commission will be tasked with drafting right-to-disconnect terms for modern awards, reflecting the unique circumstances of particular industries, and issuing general guidelines for all workplaces. The Fair Work Commission will be able to deal with disputes promptly, including by issuing stop orders. This includes a power to dismiss frivolous and vexatious claims on its own motion or at an employer's request. The Fair Work Commission will be required to deal with applications as quickly as reasonably possible. The right to disconnect will apply six months after royal assent, and small businesses will have an additional 12 months to make arrangements with their employees and in their workplaces. The other point I'll just make is that this new right to disconnect is an important reform to workplace laws to catch us up with the modern age. These days we have emails, mobile phone calls and all sorts of things that didn't use to happen in decades gone past, but it is important that our IR laws remain contemporary and deal with contemporary solutions. The fact is that there are many enterprise bargaining agreements that have been entered into between employers, unions and employees that already make provision for a right to disconnect. And you know what? Those companies are still operating. The world hasn't fallen apart. We haven't gone back to the Dark Ages. We haven't seen supermarket shelves become empty because of this right that exists in enterprise bargaining agreements already. So again, Senator Cash, if the wild claims that you keep on making—that the world will end, that we'll go back to the Dark Ages, that supermarket shelves will be empty and that the Australian economy will collapse—are true, why haven't they happened already, when we've already seen a number of enterprise bargaining agreements entered into by employers, unions and employees that already give this right? Unfortunately, every time you come in here or go to the media and make a wild claim about what will happen as a result of IR law changes and it doesn't happen, your credibility is shredded. That is why, increasingly, people don't believe the coalition when it comes to matters involving workplace laws or anything else. As I said, since we passed our IR law changes that Senator Cash and the coalition warned would bring the end of the world, we've seen wages go up in Australia, we've seen job creation go up in Australia, we've seen unemployment go down in Australia, we've seen less industrial conflict, and we've seen inflation begin to go down to a level lower than what we saw when this government was first elected. Every single claim that you have ever made about the effect of our workplace law changes has been disproven by the facts. At some point, it might be wise for the coalition to have a think about whether the exaggerations they make when they're debating workplace laws are even worth making, because every time it happens they don't happen, and your credibility gets shredded. 12:14 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2361 in my name: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 9), insert: (2) Schedule 1, page 38 (after line 14), after Part 7, insert: Part 8 — Right to disconnect Fair Work Act 2009 94 Section 12 Insert: right to disconnect term means a term in a modern award that provides for the exercise of an employee's rights set out in subsections 333M(1) and (2). Note: Section 333M deals with the right to disconnect. 95 At the end of Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2-3 Add: 149F Right to disconnect A modern award must include a right to disconnect term. Note: Right to disconnect term is defined in section 12. 96 At the end of section 321 Add: Division 6 is about generally allowing an employee to refuse contact or attempted contact from their employer (or from a third party where the contact or attempted contact relates to their work) outside the employee's working hours. The FWC may deal with disputes between an employer and an employee about the right to disconnect, including by making orders to stop an employee from refusing contact or to stop an employer from taking certain actions. 97 At the end of Part 2-9 Add: Division 6 — Employee right to disconnect Subdivision A — Employee right to disconnect 333M Employee right to disconnect (1) An employee may refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact, or attempted contact, from an employer outside of the employee's working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable. (2) An employee may refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact, or attempted contact, from a third party if the contact or attempted contact relates to their work and is outside of the employee's working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable. (3) Without limiting the matters that may be taken into account in determining whether a refusal is unreasonable for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the following must be taken into account: (a) the reason for the contact or attempted contact; (b) how the contact or attempted contact is made and the level of disruption the contact or attempted contact causes the employee; (c) the extent to which the employee is compensated: (i) to remain available to perform work during the period in which the contact or attempted contact is made; or (ii) for working additional hours outside of the employee's ordinary hours of work; (d) the nature of the employee's role and the employee's level of responsibility; (e) the employee's personal circumstances (including family or caring responsibilities). Note: For the purposes of paragraph (c), the extent to which an employee is compensated includes any non-monetary compensation. (4) For the avoidance of doubt, each of the rights in subsections (1) and (2) is a workplace right within the meaning of Part 3-1. Note: The general protections provisions in Part 3-1 also prohibit the taking of adverse action by an employer against an employee because of a workplace right of the employee under this Division. (5) For the avoidance of doubt, an employee's refusal to monitor, read or respond to contact, or attempted contact, from their employer, or from a third party if the contact or attempted contact relates to their work, will be unreasonable if the contact or attempted contact is required under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. (6) For the avoidance of doubt, if: (a) an employee is covered by an enterprise agreement; and (b) the enterprise agreement includes a right to disconnect term that is more favourable to the employee than the rights in subsections (1) and (2); the right to disconnect term in the agreement continues to apply to the employee. Subdivision B — Disputes about the employee right to disconnect 333N Disputes about the employee right to disconnect (1) This section applies if: (a) there is a dispute between an employer and an employee because the employee has refused to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact under subsection 333M(1) or (2) and: (i) the employer reasonably believes that the refusal is unreasonable; or (ii) the employer has asserted that the refusal is unreasonable and the employee reasonably believes the refusal is not unreasonable; or (b) there is another dispute between the employer and the employee about the operation of section 333M. Workplace level discussions (2) In the first instance, the parties to the dispute mustattempt to resolve the dispute at the workplace level by discussions between the parties. Application to FWC to deal with dispute (3) If discussions at the workplace level do not resolve the dispute, a party to the dispute may apply for the FWC to do either or both of the following: (a) make an order under section 333P (orders to stop refusing contact or to stop taking certain actions); (b) otherwise deal with the dispute. Representatives (4) The employer or employee to the dispute may appoint a person or industrial association to provide the employer or employee (as the case may be) with support or representation for the purposes of: (a) resolving the dispute; or (b) applying to the FWC to make an order under section 333P or otherwise deal with the dispute; or (c) the FWC dealing with the dispute. Note: A person may be represented by a lawyer or paid agent in a matter before the FWC only with the permission of the FWC (see section 596). Subdivision C — Orders to stop refusing contact or to stop taking certain actions 333P Orders to stop refusing contact or to stop taking certain actions (1) If an application made under subsection 333N(3) includes an application to make an order under this section and the FWC is satisfied that either or both of the following apply: (a) an employee has unreasonably refused to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact for the purposes of subsection 333M(1) or (2) and there is a risk the employee will continue to do so; (b) an employee's refusal to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact for the purposes of subsection 333M(1) or (2) is not unreasonable and there is a risk that the employer will: (i) take disciplinary or other action against the employee because of the employer's belief that the refusal is unreasonable; or (ii) continue to require the employee to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact despite the employee's refusal to do so; then the FWC may make an order under subsection (2). (2) The FWC may make any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring the payment of a pecuniary amount): (a) if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstance set out in paragraph (1)(a) applies—to prevent the employee from continuing to unreasonably refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact; or (b) if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstance set out in subparagraph (1)(b)(i) applies—to prevent the employer from taking the action; or (c) if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstance set out in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) applies—to prevent the employer from continuing to require the employee to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact. (3) The FWC must: (a) start to deal with an application, to the extent that it consists of an application for an order under this section, within 14 days after the application is made; and (b) deal with the application as soon as is reasonably practicable after the FWC starts to deal with it. (4) Despite subsection (2), the FWC may dismiss an application made under subsection 333N(3), to the extent that it consists of an application for an order under this section, if the FWC considers that the application: (a) is frivolous or vexatious; or (b) might involve matters that relate to: (i) Australia's defence; or (ii) Australia's national security; or (iii) an existing or future covert operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) of the Australian Federal Police; or (iv) an existing or future international operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) of the Australian Federal Police. Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application, see section 587. (5) If an employer considers an application made under subsection 333N(3) (the original application) to be frivolous or vexatious, the employer may apply to the FWC: (a) to have the original application dealt with expeditiously and efficiently; and (b) a decision on the original application communicated by the FWC to the parties to the dispute in a timely way. 333Q Contravening an order A person to whom an order under section 333P applies must not contravene a term of the order. Note: This section is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1). 333R Actions under work health and safety laws permitted Section 115 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and corresponding provisions of corresponding WHS laws (within the meaning of that Act) do not apply in relation to an application made under subsection 333N(3) that includes an application for an order under section 333P. Note: Ordinarily, if a person makes an application under subsection 333N(3) for an order under section 333P in relation to particular conduct, then section 115 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and corresponding provisions of corresponding WHS laws would prohibit a proceeding from being commenced, or an application from being made or continued, under those laws in relation to the same conduct. This section removes that prohibition. 333S This Subdivision is not to prejudice Australia's defence, national security etc. Nothing in this Subdivision requires or permits a person to take, or to refrain from taking, any action if the taking of the action, or the refraining from taking the action, would be, or could reasonably be expected to be, prejudicial to: (a) Australia's defence; or (b) Australia's national security; or (c) an existing or future covert operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) of the Australian Federal Police; or (d) an existing or future international operation (within the meaning of section 12E of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) of the Australian Federal Police. 333T Declarations by the Director-General of Security (1) Without limiting section 333S, the Director-General of Security may, by legislative instrument, declare that all or specified provisions of this subdivision do not apply in relation to a person carrying out work for the Director-General. (2) A declaration under subsection (1) may only be made with the approval of the Minister and, if made with that approval, has effect according to its terms. 333U Declarations by the Director-General of ASIS (1) Without limiting section 333S, the Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service may, by legislative instrument, declare that all or specified provisions of this Subdivision do not apply in relation to a person carrying out work for the Director-General. (2) A declaration under subsection (1) may only be made with the approval of the Minister and, if made with that approval, has effect according to its terms. Subdivision D — Dealing with disputes in other ways 333V Dealing with disputes in other ways If an application made under subsection 333N(3) for the FWC to deal with a dispute does not consist solely of an application for an order under section 333P: (a) the FWC must deal with the dispute; and (b) if the parties notify the FWC that they agree to the FWC arbitrating the dispute—the FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration. Note: For the purposes of paragraph (a), the FWC may deal with the dispute as it considers appropriate, including by mediation, conciliation, making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)). See section 333P if the application also includes an application for an order under that section. Subdivision E — Guidelines 333W Guidelines (1) The FWC must make written guidelines in relation to the operation of this Division. (2) Guidelines made under subsection (1) are not a legislative instrument. 98 Subsection 539(2) (after table item 10D) Insert: (3) Schedule 1, item 308, page 175 (after line 2), after Division 5, insert: Division 5A — Amendments made by Part 8 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act 111A Definitions In this Division: commencement means the commencement of Part 8 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act. 111B Application of section 149F of the amended Act (1) Section 149F (right to disconnect term) of the amended Act applies in relation to a modern award that is in operation on or after commencement, whether or not the award was made before commencement. (2) However, a modern award is not invalid on or after commencement only because it does not include a right to disconnect term. 111C FWC to vary certain modern awards (1) This clause applies in relation to a modern award if the award: (a) is made before commencement; and (b) is to be in operation on commencement. (2) The FWC must, by the day before commencement, make a determination varying the modern award to include a right to disconnect term. (3) A determination made under subclause (2) comes into operation on (and takes effect from) commencement. (4) Section 168 applies to a determination made under subclause (2) as if it were a determination made under Part 2-3. 111D Application of amendments to small business employers The amendments made by Part 8 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act do not apply in relation to an employer that is a small business employer on the day of commencement, or an employee of the employer, for a period of 12 months beginning on that day. A right to disconnect in Australia is a long time coming and an important advance in our labour law that will make a difference. It'll make a difference to millions of Australian workers and their families. So many people—unions, academics, community groups, workers and some employers—have been negotiating, bargaining and calling for a right to disconnect for workers for decades. Countries around the world—France, Ireland, Italy, Spain and many more—have put a limitation on contact out of hours, and it's time for our country to do the same. Australian workers do an average of seven weeks of unpaid overtime a year. Working hours are out of control, and boundaries around work contact are broken. Our amendment, the Greens amendment, to create a right to disconnect will rebuild the boundary around workers' personal time and create a safeguard for that time. This amendment means workers may refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact that is unreasonable and outside their paid working hours. It will restore the boundary between work and personal lives. It will reduce unpaid working time and wage theft. This amendment will usher into our workplace relations system some settings that are appropriate in view of the technology of the 21st century. It will provide desperately needed protections against the relentlessness of eternal contact through the digital technologies that we carry in our back pocket. Technology that once might've promised freedom and a shorter working week has now, for so many workers, created a tether to the workplace in their phones and laptops, extending the length of the working week without being paid. Being contactable at all hours of the day, every day of the week, even on holidays, pollutes our leisure time and our care activities and erodes our personal lives. Workers need some protection, and that's what the right to disconnect will do. The solution is to create a basic enforceable right, and that's what our amendment deals with. The scale and severity of this problem tells us loud and clear that the solution does not lie at the individual level; we need a right that's enforceable for people. You can't expect a worker to stand up, alone, to their boss when they receive a call at 7 am on Saturday morning when they're living on minimum wage, when they're not getting any allowance for availability and when they're not paid. They are not an executive sitting on their phone talking to New York about a big deal. They're an aged-care worker, they're a retail worker, they're a casual worker. They have no control. They have no backup to say no to their boss. They may never get another shift if they even raise a question about it. This amendment will give those workers a bit of backup, which is exactly what they need to get some control and boundaries around their working time. They're in no position at present, without any rights in the workplace around this, to actually take some power back for their own mental health, their own physical health and their families. Even workers with secure full-time jobs are often not in a position to say no to a call on the weekend or checking emails during their holidays. Elizabeth Broderick's recent review of workplace culture in EY found that about one-third of their employees were working 51 or more hours a week at least one week out of every four. This competitive culture, which affects so many workplaces now—and it certainly impacts the culture faced by many casual and part-time workers—is intensified by technology that makes workers always available, where the culture is 'never say no'. That's why we need to legislate limits on contacting workers outside of working hours and empower workers to switch off from monitoring work calls and emails where those demands are unreasonable. That is a critical phrase: what is reasonable here? What is unreasonable? Where you're not being paid to be available, where the contact is repetitive and intrusive or where you have significant family responsibilities then there are very significant boundaries that should be set so that the contact that's made is truly in the event of an emergency: it really does relate to a key task that must be dealt with immediately. What we need is a practical right to turn off your phone or computer outside of your paid hours where you're not paid to do so. People need time to look after themselves, their families and their friends. We need a healthier work culture allowing for genuine leisure and rest. The Greens' Amendment will create a new right to disconnect, for employees not to be contacted outside their workplace. This right means that an employee may refuse to monitor, read and respond to that contact outside of working hours unless the contact is reasonable. In the same way that the Fair Work Act already judges and uses the term 'reasonableness' in relation to overtime, our amendment lays out some factors to guide the Fair Work Commission about whether the contact or the request to monitor is reasonable. Now, I know we are going to have plenty of straw men put up in this parliament to try and turn this into a monster right. It's the kind of behaviour that we've seen for 40 years in this parliament whenever there's an attempt to improve the rights of Australian workers. It is false to suggest that workers who are paid at managerial level who have in their job description to be available to talk to New York or who have in their job description to take a call to help manage the media—it's part of their job—are caught by this. They are not caught by this principle. Such contact is in their contract; it's reasonable. It is a dreadful misleading of this parliament and the Australian community to set up those straw men and pretend that this is anything other than a clear, reasonable right which Australian workers deserve. It will be reasonable to contact a worker if they're receiving an allowance to be on call—like many of our parliamentary staff, who receive additional income to compensate for their hours. The Fair Work Commission, a very experienced body which knows about the adaptability we need in different places and in different occupations, will consider the nature of the employee's role and their level of responsibility. The Fair Work Commission will have the power to tailor the way the right is implemented in modern awards, meaning it can be shaped to fit every industry. The reasonableness test and the role of the Fair Work Commission in implementing the right in awards and agreements allow for flexibility. That is what we need. A right to disconnect already has a huge amount of support in Australia and worldwide. At least 56 enterprise agreements already have it—Victoria Police, journalists at the West Australian newspaper and in our universities, schools and local government. Many authoritative Australian industrial relations academics, including Associate Professor Chris Wright, Professor David Peetz and Dr Fiona Macdonald, and lots of other academics, have expressed strong support for and put forward clear evidence in support of this right to disconnect, recognising how it will look different in different industries but how fundamental and important this adaptation is to the kind of technology, the kind of workplace and the kinds of families and workers that we have right now. In evidence provided to the inquiry into the closing loopholes bill, the Australian Federal Police Association argued that this right has worked 'extremely well'—their words—in Victoria and has led to their support for a harmonised approach across the Commonwealth. The Queensland Teachers Union successfully fought to guarantee a right to disconnection for educators in the state. Surveys show Queensland teachers on average work more than 45 hours a week without any overtime paid. No wonder an overwhelming 94 per cent of Queensland teachers voted in favour of an enterprise agreement that gives them the legal right to keep their work and home lives separate—to be able to turn off when they need to when they're not being paid. It is time that we secure this kind of protection, this right, for all workers. Workers and their families can't wait any longer for this urgent reform. I've spent my working life interviewing, surveying and researching amongst Australian workers, especially Australian working women. They need the right to be able to have a child, to have a family, to look after their aged parents, and so do their partners—to be able to do the combination of care with their work responsibilities. At present, they are often caught, feel guilty and are unable to turn off their phone when they're looking after all of those care responsibilities. We have a new kind of workforce; we have a workforce that's increasingly made up of carers and of women, and our industrial relations legislation must rise to this 21st-century challenge. It is time we implemented this right. It's good for workers, good for women, good for carers and their families and good for our communities. It's really good for our health and safety in the long run, and very good for our workplaces, our country and our productivity. 12:23 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Let me get this right. Through the chair, Senator Cash, I'm not sure, but was it a promise by the Labor Party to cut red tape for businesses? Senator Cash I0M They promised so many things, Senator Lambie, but they don't— Senator LAMBIE 250026 Okay. I guess I'll just go to the Labor Party. Did you promise businesses that you would cut red tape? The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 Senator Lambie, I just want to seek some guidance from the chamber here. It is a free-ranging debate, and that's fine, and I know we have a hard marker. But there is an amendment before the Senate now on the right to disconnect. Did you have any questioning or any comments around the right to disconnect? I don't want to upset the whole Senate chamber, but I don't want to get into— Senator LAMBIE 250026 That's alright; I will go to the right to disconnect, but, because of the cut-down by the government to guillotine us, we don't have a lot of time here. We've got really important legislation here, and, I tell you, this is one of the worst ones I've seen. Considering the nine years under the coalition, this is as bad as I've seen it when it comes to industrial relations—some of the biggest ones we've had in this country for many years, and we've been guillotined with this limited amount of time. We've just had a good old speech which has taken up another 10 minutes. I guess my question on the right to disconnect would be this: does that apply to the Public Service? 12:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, it does. 12:25 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Wow! So that would be for adviser positions as well—for our advisers in here, in parliament, in our offices? 12:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't think it is particularly wise for me to get into hypotheticals, but— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Hang on, hang on! As Senator Pocock has pointed out, and as I think Minister Burke has pointed out, in essence this right would not apply to employees who are compensated to remain available to perform work—I will take you, Senator Lambie, to clause 333M, which sets out the right to disconnect. Subsection (3) says that some of the things that need to be taken into account about whether it's unreasonable for an employee to refuse to be contacted include: (c) the extent to which the employee is compensated: (i) to remain available to perform work during the period in which the contact or attempted contact is made; or (ii) for working additional hours outside of the employee's ordinary hours of work; In my experience, the staff in my office who handle media inquiries outside of hours are paid an additional allowance in recognition of, essentially, the overtime they are required to work in their role. I daresay there are similar arrangements in place for most staff who work in this building, in recognition that it is a workplace with unusual hours. Political staffers, under the MOPS enterprise agreement, receive an extra allowance in recognition of the fact they are regularly required to work outside of normal working hours. The terms of employment of political staffers will be a key consideration in determining whether a staffer electing to disconnect is unreasonable. For those journalists following the debate, I don't think they need to be concerned about whether they're going to be able to contact media advisers for politicians after hours; it is recognised that that is quite a normal occurrence in this line of work and that that is the reason those staff are paid an additional allowance for working extra hours. 12:28 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I'm not just talking about the media advisers here; I'm talking about other advisers. You seem to make these rules up. You take two advisers off the crossbench and the rest are now working more hours. If my guys took me to Fair Work, I reckon they could do me over, to be honest with you. How many hours for advisers are fair overtime hours per week? Why do you tell me that so we can all stay aligned so I don't end up at Fair Work again? Why don't you tell me that? What's fair for my people in working hours so we can get the job done when your— The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 I take it, Senator Lambie, you've resumed your seat. Did you want to continue asking questions? If you do, I'd advise you to stand up so your microphone is on. Senator LAMBIE 250026 What hours do you think are reasonable hours for our advisers to be working? What is it? 12:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That decision, as to what is reasonable, is one that's got to be made by the Fair Work Commission. Senator Cash I0M Exactly! Senator WATT 245759 I know Senator Cash always hates it when I point out that, under the legislation, the Fair Work Commission has certain rights. That's the way our industrial relations legislation has always worked. It works when we have Labor governments, and it worked when Senator Cash was the IR minister. There are a range of matters left to the Fair Work Commission. Senator Cash, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's been a long tradition in Australian workplace laws that there are a range of matters left to the Fair Work Commission, or whatever it was called previously, to determine—and this is no different. Senator Lambie, again, the arrangements and the enterprise agreements that apply to personal staff and ministerial staff across almost all of the roles, if not all of them, include an overtime allowance. For electorate office based staff—which, I'm guessing, is probably what most of your staff are—you would be familiar with the fact that there are what are known as ESA points, extra allowances that can be paid to electorate office staff, again in recognition of the additional hours that they're required to perform. It'll be a matter for the Fair Work Commission to decide that, but I would expect that the Fair Work Commission would take into account the fact that people in this line of work are paid additional allowances in recognition of their unusual hours, and it would therefore be difficult for such an employee to say that they cannot be connected in those unusual hours. 12:30 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I was just wondering, so we're all clear: this is a business, and I believe we're employers. That's what was debated in the last Fair Work matter that I went through: we actually employ them, not you people. What is acceptable and what is not? Can you show me that list? What is acceptable and what is not for small business, and what is acceptable and what is not for the right to disconnect when it comes to the Public Service? When it comes to EBAs and contracts, which comes first: the EBA and the contracts or your right to disconnect, even though it is outside your EBA and your contract? 12:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Lambie, presuming this amendment is passed, it will become the law of Australia, and every employee who's covered by the act would have this right. The point is to broaden and extend it from the enterprise bargaining agreements where it already applies and to make it a broader right for all employees. You asked, Senator Lambie, about the types of factors that need to be taken into account to determine whether it's reasonable for an employee to refuse to be contacted outside their normal hours. All of those reasons are set out in proposed section 333M(3). I know we've got limited time, so I won't read them all out, but all of those reasons are clearly set out in that clause. You raised small businesses. I think I addressed this before. The right won't exist until six months after royal assent to the bill, but for small businesses there will be an additional 12 months on top of that to make arrangements with their employees and in their workplaces before the Fair Work Act obligations apply. 12:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I am pursuing the issue that had been raised by Senator Lambie. Senator Lambie's point—and you have articulated this, I believe in your answer—is that there are no exemptions as such. No-one is exempt. If an issue is raised, despite the fact that you are compensated for additional hours, you can still bring a claim, and the Fair Work Commission itself is the determiner of what is reasonable and what is not. It is a little bit like national security and the Defence Force. There's actually no carve-out for national security and the Defence Force. I personally would have thought that the government would have looked at this and perhaps proposed an amendment so that, in relation to national security and defence, there is a carve-out, but there is not. The point Senator Lambie is making, yet again, is that there are no exemptions here; there are merely factors that the Fair Work Commission may take into account when a claim is made. As Senator Lambie knows, the Fair Work Commission may well say, 'Guess what: it's not adequate, you're not compensated, and you now have a right to disconnect.' I will pursue something that has been raised particularly by businesses that work across time zones. It's been raised, in particular, by businesses in my home state of Western Australia. The West Australian newspaper, on behalf of businesses in WA, has been pursuing this issue. At the best of times, people in WA and people in the east know it is difficult to do business in Western Australia when you have a three-hour time difference. I don't think it is unusual for me to say that there are many in Western Australia who start receiving calls as early as 2.30 to 3 am during daylight savings—it's as simple as that—because it is already 5.30 to 6 am in the eastern states. The eastern states are already open for business, when in Western Australia technically people are still in bed. The issue that the business community have been raising is that, the way this is drafted and the fact that there are no exemptions—there are only guidelines that the Fair Work Commission itself is able to pass comment on and determine on—this will cause difficulties for employers with staff working in different time zones. Businesses then say that this could be devastating to businesses across Australia and cause chaos for Western Australian businesses, particularly if employees could only have communication with east coast colleagues in the narrow window between east coast business hours and those in the west. Imagine if employees in Sydney or Melbourne were banned from emailing an employee in Perth until midday to align with WA time or if a Perth manager would be breaching the law in providing an update to his or her east coast colleagues after 2 pm—or even, let's face it, 5.30 pm WA time is actually 8.30 pm eastern states time. So the question that has been raised is: for example, a company operates across Australia. Staff are actually very good about respecting colleagues in Western Australia, knowing when it's best to contact each of them. But what will actually happen if mistakes are made, or, alternatively, what will actually happen if there is going to be an impact on the business? These are very genuine questions that have been raised by, as I said, Western Australians in particular. How is this going to work, and what are the guarantees the government has in place that this won't impact the Western Australian business community and, more broadly, the economy? 12:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'll come to the WA point in a moment, Senator Cash. I've actually forgotten the point you made at the very beginning of that, but you were essentially talking about the risk that employees might abuse this new right. I would point out that under clause— Senator Cash I0M Chair! Senator WATT 245759 Sorry, that was the way I interpreted it. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 If you have a point of order, please stand and raise the point of order. Senator Cash I0M It is a point of order. I am being verballed— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: And wait for the call. Senator Cash. Senator Cash I0M I am being verballed by the minister. That's not what I said. I was raising a very genuine concern. I was reading out concerns from the business community in relation to the impact of this on Western Australia, and I said that at the outset of my contribution. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, if you could take that into account. Senator WATT 245759 Sure. As I say, I will come to the Western Australia point. I did think at the beginning of your contribution, Senator Cash, that you were raising a concern that the right might be abused. All I was going to do was point out that clause 333P(4) does allow the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application made by a worker if it's frivolous or vexatious. So there is some protection there for employers, whether it's Western Australia otherwise, against frivolous or vexatious claims. In relation to the point about Western Australian businesses that I have seen ventilated in some of the media, particularly in Western Australia media over the last few days, the first point to make—and Senator Cash acknowledged this—is that none other than the West Australian newspaper's own enterprise agreement already provides a right to disconnect for its workers. So, if the West Australian newspaper has been able to make this right to disconnect work prior to the right being implemented by legislation, then I am confident that other Western Australian businesses are quite capable of managing this as well. The West Australian newspaper is obviously an example of a business that operates across a number of different time zones. They've got journalists and other staff working in this very building, yet they were able to come to an arrangement with their staff that would make this right to disconnect work, notwithstanding the difference in time zones. Again, I've got every confidence that other Western Australian businesses will be able to do so as well. Senator Cash, as for Western Australian businesses more broadly, again, I'd refer you to clause 333M(3), which sets out the factors that the Fair Work Commission needs to take into account in determining whether an employee's refusal to be contacted after hours is unreasonable. They include: the reason for the contact or attempted contact; how the contact or attempted contact is made; the level of disruption the contact or attempted contact causes the employee; the extent to which the employee is compensated for working and for being available in additional hours; and the nature of the employee's role, the employee's level of responsibility and the employee's personal circumstances. Again, I think it's dangerous to get into hypothetical situations when this is something that will be left to the Fair Work Commission. But the Fair Work Commission is being required, under what we're proposing, to take into account the nature of the employee's role and the employee's level of responsibility. I dare say that the Fair Work Commission would distinguish between a highly paid executive in a Western Australian based company, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a low-paid aged-care worker, hospitality worker or office worker when it comes to whether they could be contacted after hours and whether it's reasonable for a person in that position to be repeatedly contacted after hours. I have confidence that the Fair Work Commission can get this right, especially when the legislation requires them to take into account, amongst other things, the nature of the employee's role and the employee's level of responsibility. 12:41 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Casual miners—so-called casual miners—working in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are each owed an average, due to wage theft, back pay of around $33,000 per year for every year of service. If you're a casual, you are likely owed $33,000 per year that you have worked. My amendment aims to get these miners their back pay. Before getting to that, I note that the Senate has yet again been hijacked with a guillotine this afternoon, when almost half the Senate want more debate. This is a grotesque abuse of power. It's a grotesque abuse of democracy. It's a grotesque abuse of process in this Senate—the people's Senate. These are serious guillotines. We know that sometimes guillotines are arranged, and that's fine, with the consent of just about everyone. Regarding serious guillotines, where there's a genuine disagreement between Labor and the LNP and a need for more debate, here are the figures: in the 45th Parliament, there were two; in the 46th Parliament, there were 24; and, in the 47th Parliament, under Labor, the Greens, Teals and the coalition, we're halfway through and there have been 39 already. Almost all guillotines involve a Labor-Greens-Teal-Senator Pocock coalition. This morning we have Senator Thorpe and Senator Pocock amending significant industrial relations legislation affecting many employees, small businesses and employers around the country. Yet we have limited time to assess and almost no time to debate. Minister, last night in my second reading speech, I explained, in great detail, what I believe is the largest systemic wage theft in Australia. It's explained in the independent report that One Nation commissioned. I foreshadowed an amendment to pay casuals working in the black coal mining industry. It's been tabled. Casual coalminers are being ripped off to the tune of around $33,000 each and every year. Labor's bill would put more power with union bosses. After what I unveiled last night, that's putting the fox in charge of henhouse. The CFMMEU, the Construction Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, enabled and supported wage theft from casual coalminers. The CFMMEU negotiated and endorsed enterprise agreements that pay casual coalminers less per hour than the award combined with a 25 per cent casual loading. Some enterprise agreements in the coal sector paid and still pay paid casual workers less than a full-time worker receives per hour under the award. Ignore the loading; it is less than the award. That's a casual being paid less than a full-time worker. How? CFMEU union bosses negotiated and approved this wage theft. Minister, union bosses negotiated and approved these agreements that pay casuals less than full-time workers, yet your bill places more power with those union bosses, who failed to protect workers and who betrayed workers—union bosses who enabled theft from mineworkers. The Fair Work Commission failed. They failed to properly assess these agreements and let them sail through. They approved them. When I asked the Fair Work Commission at Senate estimates to provide me with a copy of the better off overall test, the BOOT, that they had conducted for just one of these agreements, they could not hand over a single document or spreadsheet—not one. This is a wage theft resulting from a cosy collusion between the labour hire companies, including the world's largest labour hire company, which is owned by a Japanese parent company; union bosses who betrayed workers; and the Fair Work Commission. All three are culpable. My amendment on sheet 2339 will trigger a review of those coal enterprise agreements to ensure they meet all relevant entitlements. It would ensure any underpaid casual coalminers are compensated for the wage theft they have suffered and would pay them the $33,000 each per annum that they're entitled to. This cost would be apportioned between the offending labour hire company—the employer—the union and the Commonwealth, through the Fair Work Commission, for their culpability in the wage theft. Senators who vote for Labor's legislation without voting for my amendment are endorsing massive wage theft—Australia's largest ever wage theft. Legislation must not just attempt to fix it for the future; it must right the wage theft and get the back pay. Minister, why doesn't the government support my amendments on sheet 2339 to pay back entitlements for casual coalminers that have had wages stolen from them—$33,000, on average, per year? 12:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Roberts, thanks for providing a copy of this amendment to me before the debate started. The government does not support your proposed amendment. We consider that the bill as it stands, which we're introducing here, provides a considered and balanced framework for defining casual employment and supporting casual employees to convert to permanent employment. The government has consulted with a wide range of stakeholders to reach a position that addresses both employees' and employers' needs. The government's reforms that were passed last year also give labour hire employees the right to seek orders from the Fair Work Commission that provide entitlements to the same pay under a host business's enterprise agreement. Casual labour hire employees in the black-coal-mining industry can also seek these orders. So, Senator Roberts, the bill as we are presenting it already addresses the needs that casual workers, whether they be miners or others, undoubtedly have. The reforms that we made in our amendments last year, around the labour hire loophole, were also designed to address the rights of casual coalminers in particular. Senator Roberts, I've obviously been in a number of estimates hearings where you've raised these issues. It is my observation that you have been given answers to these questions by officials on a number of occasions. You haven't accepted those answers, and you continue to ask the same questions. It's your right to do so, but I think it's pretty clear that whatever answer you're provided with won't satisfy you. It's your right to continue campaigning on this issue, but I would remind you, Senator Roberts, that last year, when we did introduce changes to benefit labour hire casual employees to ensure that they are paid at least the same as the permanent workers they work alongside, it was unfortunate and surprising that you voted against that change. I would have thought that, if you were as committed to the rights of casual coalminers as you say you are, you would have voted with the government for those reforms that we implemented last year. I was surprised that, after a number of years of you campaigning on this issue, you voted with the coalition against the interests of those labour hire casual coalminers who you say you represent. 12:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, let's have the full truth. We voted against that because it didn't address the core issue. There is no casual permanent rort loophole at all other than the one I've just discussed. The simple solution is that the Fair Work Act needs to be enforced. Your bill covers the future. Your previous bill covers the future. It shuts the door to backpay of these miners who are owed, on average, $33,000 per year for the breach of the Fair Work Act. Way you covering up union bosses' culpability? That is what you are doing. That's what Minister Burke is doing. Minister Burke has received two letters from me on this issue. We get a polite, 'Nothing to see here; move on.' I've written letters. Miners have been in touch through personal meetings and provided solid, written evidence to the department's senior advisers. Nothing has happened. With the minister's office's senior advisers, nothing has happened. With the Fair Work Commission, nothing has happened. The Fair Work Ombudsman used a fraudulent document to deny any case for the miners, despite the miners having five documents, including court hearing transcripts, that say their documents are correct. Why you continuing to cover this up against miners in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland? Why are you continuing to cover it up? Is it because union bosses in the CFMEU are culpable because they have engineered this? Is it because union bosses in the CFMEU are the ones who started labour hire in the coalmining industry? Is it because they were actually employers and they had some commercial agreements that we've got wind of? Minister, these people are entitled to their back pay. That's what I want, and that's what this amendment covers. It covers their back pay. We don't want this bill to go through and simply bury the issue. That's what Minister Burke is doing. Why are you covering up for union bosses? Is it because they funnel millions of dollars into Labor Party campaign coffers? Why are you not doing this after almost five years of me bringing this to your attention? 12:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As Senator Roberts has just made clear, he has been raising these issues for five years. The questions have been answered for five years, and I don't propose to add to any of them, but again I point out that Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson did have an opportunity late last year to vote with the government to ensure that the rights of labour hire workers in coalmines were protected. Unfortunately, Senator Roberts decided to vote with the coalition. 12:53 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I will repeat myself. We are not voting for legislation that covers up, endorses and prevents miners from getting their back pay. When this Labor government stops covering up for CFMEU bosses who've done dodgy deals, stops covering up for the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman, which are not doing their job; and stops covering up for labour hire companies—we will not vote for legislation that prevents miners getting their back pay and covers it up. 12:54 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I want to ask some questions—and I know Senator Lambie has some as well—on casuals. Perhaps I could go through the proposed amendments to the definition of 'casual employees' that will be agreed to later today. The bill itself, as we know, scraps the current definition and provides a new definition of 'casual employees'. The proposed new definition provides that an employee is a casual employee on the basis that the employment relationship is characterised by an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work and the employee would be entitled to a casual loading. The bill then proposes to define the phrase 'absence of a firm advance commitment to continued and indefinite work' by reference to a series of points: the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the employment relationship; the contract of employment or the mutual understanding or expectation between the employer and the employee not rising to the level of a term of that contract, which may be inferred from the conduct of the employer and the employee after entering into the contract of employment, or from how the contract is performed; and having regard to but not limited to (a) an inability of the employee to elect to offer work or an inability of the employee to accept or reject work, (b) the nature of the employer's enterprise and (c) whether there are full-time and part-time employees performing or whether there is a regular pattern of work for the employee. So, anybody in the gallery who's a small business, that's your new test for employing a casual. God help you, is all I can say. Can I ask a series of questions, though, in relation to how this is going to play out? Can you confirm under the provision proposed that, even if a casual employee wanted to sort out and agreed that they were a casual employee, the Fair Work Commission, under this definition, can still determine that they are not in fact a casual employee? My second question: if a business has one of its casuals defined as permanent due to a decision by the Fair Work Commission, will the business then have to define as permanent other casual employees who are in the same situation, even if the other employees want to remain casual? My next question: if the casual employee who originally wanted to remain casual then decides, at a later point, that they want to become permanent, is the employer required to make them permanent? Or do they then need to go back to the Fair Work Commission for a decision? In the legislation, proposed section 15A(3)(c) states: a pattern of work is regular for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(c)(iv) even if it is not absolutely uniform and includes some fluctuation or variation over time … The question that's being asked there is, can you define what 'absolutely uniform' means in that situation? And the other question that then arises is, when is a pattern of work that could lead to an employee being classified as permanent 'absolutely uniform' and when is it not 'absolutely uniform'? And are you able to give a clear definition to small businesses in terms of what is defined as a 'regular pattern of work'? Or will this be a decision of the Fair Work Commission, which could produce a wide variety of results? They're all questions that have been put to me and submitted by small businesses. 12:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'll do my best to answer those multiple questions. Just before I do so, I might give a brief statement on what we're seeking to do with this amendment. One of the things that this bill seeks to do is to amend the definition of casual employment to become a fair and objective test of whether someone is a casual employee or not. That's because we consider the situation we have under the current law, which allows an employer to treat someone as a casual even if they are working like a permanent worker, to be an unfair loophole. The new definition will keep the core concept that a casual is someone who does not have a firm advance commitment to continuing indefinite work, but it ensures this concept is understood by reference to the practical reality of the employment relationship. The new definition will allow parties to assess what is really going on in the workplace instead of just looking at what was in the employment contract on Day 1. It's simply not good enough that an employer can dictate in an employment contract that someone is a casual employee even if, the way the job works out, the employee is working permanent rosters and permanent hours like a permanent employee. They continue to be treated as a casual because that's what the original contract said, and that's what we're seeking to change. If a casual employee wants to change to permanent, the new employee choice pathway means they have a fair way to initiate this. I'll come to the questions Senator Cash asked. The fundamental point is that, if a worker wants to remain casual, they cannot be forced to changed. Senator Cash, I think your initial question was: if a person wanted to remain as a casual employee, can the Fair Work Commission determine that they are not a casual? The answer is 'no', because an employee has to choose to become permanent. Similarly, the opportunity to become a permanent employee rests with the individual employee and will depend on their individual circumstances. The mere fact that other workers in a workplace are deemed or become permanent doesn't necessarily mean that every other employee in similar circumstances becomes permanent. That individual employee has the right to seek to become permanent or remain as a casual. I might also point out—because there have been some claims made about red tape in this legislation—that one of the things we're also doing is streamlining this process as a result of some advocacy from business groups. The law as it currently stands, as it was amendment by the former coalition government, essentially provides a requirement on employees to review and offer the opportunity to convert to permanent on an annual basis. That requirement is being removed under this legislation. The way this will work is that a casual employee working in a medium or large sized business after six months of employment would have a right to seek to be converted to permanent. If they're working in a small business, it would be a 12-month wait before they can ask for that. If it didn't happen, and they still wanted to convert to permanent later on, they would continue to have a right to ask their employer to do so, but the right doesn't even begin until six months work as a casual in a medium to large sized business or after 12 months in a small business. 13:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia There were some other questions in relation to when a pattern of work is absolutely uniform, which could lead to an employee being classified as permanent, and when it is not absolutely uniform. In relation to the proposed section 15A(2)(a) in item 1, it requires characterisation of an employment relationship to be determined by reference to its 'real substance, practical reality and true nature.' The question that's being asked there is: Are these three concepts intended to be synonymous or distinct? If distinct, what are the intended differences between the three? 13:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Cash, as you would be aware, the concepts that are set out in that amendment—that the commission would need to consider the substance and the true nature—are well-understood terms in employment law, and it would be incumbent on the Fair Work Commission to apply the general meaning as they have determined it in many cases. They would be required to apply that in this case as well. 13:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll go back to the question in relation to 'absolutely uniform' in terms of the pattern of work that could lead to an employee being classified as permanent. When is it not 'absolutely uniform'? The other issue that I've been submitted in terms of questions that are consistently being asked is that, if a casual worker works one day a week regularly but works two other random days each week, will they have a regular pattern of work for the purposes of 15A(2)(c)(iv), given that section 15A(3)(c) states that the regular pattern of work does not need to be uniform? Hence my first question about what the government is actually saying, in terms of small businesses, about being absolutely uniform and not absolutely uniform. 13:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think the important thing to remember here regarding 'uniform' is that it's not as if that's being put forward as the test that needs to be satisfied for someone to be able to convert from casual to permanent employment. The amendment makes clear that the test of whether someone is casual or not is whether there is an absence of a firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work. That is the test, and that is the test that used to apply under Australian law prior to the High Court decision in the Rossato case. It's also important to remember that no-one is forcing a casual employee to convert to permanency, and no-one is forcing an employer to do so. What will happen as a result of this is simply that an employee who is described as casual will have an opportunity to seek to convert if they can demonstrate that they are not a casual employee. I might also just make the point that while there are some employer groups who have complained about this—we recognise that—there are also employer groups who have supported this change, such as the Australian Hotels Association. Pubs and clubs are big users of casual labour. There are many people who work in pubs and clubs who are genuine casual employees. They work 10 hours one week, 20 hours the next and none the week after—genuine casual employees. But there are unfortunately other workers in other industries that do work the same hours, week after week, month after month, year after year, and are nevertheless treated and paid as casuals. That's allowed to happen under the current law, and that's what we say needs to be changed. The Australian Hotels Association supports our proposal as to the definition of 'casual employment'. They say that it strikes the right balance. We've essentially reinstated the common law definition that existed before the Morrison government took an axe to workers' rights in 2021. The new definition focuses on the reality of the employment relationship, not how it might have been described in the employment contract. 13:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, in terms of the definition of 'casual', for the avoidance of doubt, is the meaning of 'casual employee' in the sham provision of the proposed section 359A in item 21 qualified by the proposed section 15A(5) in item 1, which states that an employee 'who commences employment as a casual employee' remains so until the occurrence of one of four events? 13:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'll attempt to answer the question. If it's not the right answer for the right question, let me know. These what have been called sham casuals provisions prohibit employers from deliberately undermining the use of casual employment, and they're modelled on the sham contracting provisions under the act. Under section 359B, employers 'must not dismiss, or threaten to dismiss' an employee to re-engage them as a casual. Under section 359C, employers must not make false statements to a non-casual employee 'in order to persuade or influence' them 'to enter into a contract for casual employment'. We recognise that the majority of employers do the right thing when engaging an employee. The inclusion of the sham casual provisions is supported by the independent review of the previous government's laws, which found consideration should be given to provisions to exclude sham casual employment arrangements from meeting the statutory definition. Hopefully that answers your question. 13:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Going on to another section that flows from that, with regard to section 15A(2)(c), the considerations are not limited to the preceding subparagraphs. What are the other considerations the government believes might then be weighted? 13:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, those words are commonly used in legislation to allow, in this case, the Fair Work Commission—in other cases, different tribunals or courts—to consider other factors. It's not the government's intention to prescribe other factors beyond those which are already set out in the legislation. 13:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I turn now to the definition of 'employment'. We had asked some of these questions in the committee stage of the Senate inquiry but hadn't been able to get answers to them, so I want to go through them again. If and when the bill is passed, how many different definitions of 'employee' will there be across Commonwealth, state and territory acts? What is a person who was previously an independent contractor who becomes an employee under the legislation? This is the question that's being asked: does that mean that they are treated as an employee under tax legislation, and could it be possible that someone is an employee for the purpose of the Fair Work Act but a contractor under the tax act? 13:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Part of the reason for the definition that is being put forward in this bill is the notion of employee-like conditions. But, for the purposes of Commonwealth workplace laws, there will be one definition of 'employment' and one of 'employee', and they are the ones that are being put forward in this bill. I think it's well understood that there are some workers who are covered by federal legislation and there are other workers who are covered by state legislation, and of course the relevant definition of 'employee' and 'employment' will depend on whether they are a state regulated or Commonwealth regulated form of employment. On the point about definitions for workplace laws and tax laws, as far as I'm aware, it's always been the case that a worker may be considered an employee for workplace relations purposes but an independent contractor for tax purposes, because there are different definitions, and it has always been thus. So the fact that there may be different definitions at the federal level depending on whether we're talking about workplace relations law or tax law is nothing new. 13:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is the flow-on question that has arisen. If you're the employer of this person under the Fair Work Act, you would have to treat them as an employee—that is, withhold income tax, for example—but under the tax act, if they're a contractor, they would have to charge you GST for their service. So a person could be paying income tax yet also charging GST for the same work. Can you just confirm if that is the case? 13:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I am advised that that is the case, but again that's not anything new. It's always been the case that someone could be treated as an employee for a workplace relations purpose under federal workplace relations laws but be treated as an independent contractor under tax laws. The only change here is that we are changing the definition of 'employee' and 'employment'. The idea that there are different definitions for workplace relations laws purposes and tax purposes is nothing new. 13:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I will now ask some very brief questions, because we've now only got 15 minutes left to ask questions. I will go to the issue of road safety and 'employee-like'. With regard to proposed section 40D, which refers in subsection (b) to 'the need to avoid unreasonable adverse impacts', the question is: when is it intended that adverse impacts would become unreasonable, and is the effect of that provision on the road transport objective that there will be some adverse impacts that are reasonable and acceptable? 13:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Cash, you'd be aware that one of the differences between this debate on changes to the road transport industry and the debate we saw roughly 10 or 15 years ago, when the then Labor government made changes, was that this time the proposals we're legislating around the road transport industry have the widespread support of road transport employer groups. The intention is that the body—I think it's called the road transport advisory body or a name like that—that will be established under this legislation will provide advice to the Fair Work Commission on the types of matters that you're talking about, and it would then be a matter for the Fair Work Commission. 13:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Continuing with section 40D, regarding subsection (b)(iii)—administrative and compliance costs for road transport industry participants—can you confirm when they become unreasonable? Then, in terms of the Fair Work Commission, section 40E(4) states that the president of the Fair Work Commission must consult and have regard to the views of the RTAG. What capacity will the president have to ignore, reject or overcome the advice of the RTAG? It's one thing for them to provide advice, but, based on what you've just said, if you look at section 40E(4), it merely states that the president must consult and have regard to the views. It does not say that the president needs to accept those views and then act on them. 13:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The approach that we're putting forward here requires standards to be made by an expert panel which informs the Fair Work Commission's decision. The reason we've gone down that path is that that ensures that the Fair Work Commission has the appropriate knowledge and expertise of the road transport industry to perform its functions under the bill while retaining flexibility to achieve an appropriate and efficient allocation of resources to manage its overall caseload. But again, Senator Cash, as I think I said earlier, it's not unusual for the Fair Work Commission to be given the right to make its own decisions—in this case, based on advice. The Fair Work Commission is a standalone body with its own decision-making powers, and it must consult the road transport advisory group. But of course it retains the decision-making powers, as it does under any other number of other sections under the legislation. 13:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Continuing on then with section 40, under section 40F(4), in what circumstances may the minister revoke a person's appointment to the RTAG, and, under section 40F(5), is it intended that the RTAG would have any capacity to ignore, reject or overcome any directions provided to it by the president of the Fair Work Commission as to the way in which the body is to carry out its functions? 13:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The new road transport advisory group will be established to advise the Fair Work Commission in relation to matters that involve the road transport industry. The minister will appoint the road transport advisory group members who must be members of or nominated by registered organisations entitled to represent the interests of road transport contractors or road transport businesses. The road transport advisory group may form subcommittees which may include people with appropriate expertise or experience who are not appointed to the road transport advisory group. This approach allows for additional expertise to be brought in as required—for example, where a proposed order will cover different types of road transport work. So it's the role of the minister to appoint people to the road transport advisory group. As for their continued membership, that's a matter for the minister, and I think you referred to the fact that clause 40F(4) allows the minister to revoke a person's appointment to the road transport advisory group. There was a point about the president? Senator Cash I0M Making directions—do they have to follow them? Senator WATT 245759 Yes, they do. Just to be clear: (5) The President may give the Road Transport Advisory Group directions as to the way in which the body is to carry out its functions. Yes, the advisory group does need to follow those directions. 13:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unsurprisingly, we're now into the last five minutes of scrutinising—or, should I say, the lack of scrutiny—in relation to, as I said, one of the most complex and confusing bills to ever come before this parliament. The bad news for all of those employers out there is that this bill directly impacts you. Last night Senator Paul Scarr gave an incredibly articulate and real example of what small businesses are now going to be going through when they want to bring on a casual employee. There is step after step after step. Senator Scarr said you will now need to go through 25 steps, and then you better pray to God that you actually got it right. Because, in the event that you have incorrectly engaged this person, despite your best efforts as a small business person to pick up a copy of the Fair Work Act—because I know that you do that every night when you go home, because you have so much time—and read it and work out what it means, there will be a penalty to pay. I think what is most disappointing about this legislation today, though, is that, despite what the minister says, the government hasn't listened to business. You just have to look at the front pages across Australia today. These are not businesses saying, 'We don't want to comply with the laws.' These are businesses that are saying, 'These laws that you are putting in place are going to have a detrimental effect on us.' They don't say that selfishly. If you have a detrimental effect on business, as they have said, certain things flow from that. In the first instance—and you have to see what the rideshare companies are saying, and even Minister Burke admitted this—prices will go up for consumers as a result of this legislation. Labor's legislation is estimated to see prices for food delivery or rideshare services increase by up to 35 per cent. That means that, in a cost-of-living crisis, Labor don't care that their legislation will see the Australian consumer pay more for a service that they need. But, more than that, businesses—and small businesses in particular—have been clear that they can only take on board so many additional costs. The only thing that they can then do when they are at breaking point is pass those costs on to the consumer. That is what businesses in Australia are saying. Alternatively, there is, of course, another choice: if you're floundering in red tape, you don't understand the complexity, and you are completely confused by what this legislation and tranche 2 and tranche 1 are doing to you, you no longer open your doors. That's not the coalition saying that. The minister likes to keep saying that this is the coalition running a scare campaign. We're out there every day talking to businesses, and, in particular, small businesses. You only have to read the newspapers today or yesterday to see that it is the businesses of Australia—as I said, those people who get up every morning and employ Australians—saying to this government: 'Please, just pause. We cannot cope with any additional red tape. We cannot cope with any additional complexity. And, more than that, we cannot cope with the additional confusion that this is going to create for us.' But Labor doesn't care, and we accept and know why. This was always about taking away from employers the right to run their businesses in consultation with their employees to work out what the best result for employers and employees actually is. This is all about centralising the employment system in Australia, and you can see that from all of the minister's answers: 'The Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Commission.' They're running your business; you'd better get to know them well. Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 33 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Reconciliation, First Nations Australians 33 13:30 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia The definition of 'reconciliation' is 'a situation in which two people or groups of people reconcile'. The leftist activist class have used this term for years when discussing Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations in Australia. The term 'reconciliation' assumes not only responsibility for wrongdoing but forgiveness on the part of the party that was wronged. It's become clear, however, that the activists, as far as they're concerned, have no actual will for forgiveness. Quite why Australians in 2024 need to be forgiven for what their ancestors may or may not have done is a question best left for the merchants of this complaint industry. But the activists haven't forgiven. As far as they're concerned, historical grievance is their bread and butter. It's their livelihood. It's what makes them seem important and virtuous. Labor and the Greens perpetually fan the flames of historical grievance so they can be thought of as sympathetic. They think Indigenous Australians can't succeed without the welfare state because they are, ultimately, organs of the welfare state, but we know they can, and that's the difference between us. The tragic irony is that the constant virtue signalling—the acknowledgements of country, the renaming of well-known places, the activism in the education system—all that those things have actually done is fuel the tension, and we may actually have gone backwards rather than forwards. The Voice referendum signalled that Aussies want us all to be together, regardless of race. It signalled the defeat of the perpetual victimhood narrative. As my colleague Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said in her excellent first speech in 2022, we need to focus on nation building, not nation burning. Recreational Hunting 34 13:32 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I rise today to welcome the decision of the Victorian Labor government's commitment to retain recreational duck and quail hunting. It's a decision that is both sensible and common sense. I know that for some time this has been a sensitive issue, but not everyone supports duck hunting, and it's important that we respect this diversity of views. It is equally important that we respect the passion of many Victorians who enjoy, and have a dedication to, the sport and the contribution that it makes to many regional communities and towns that I visit as duty senator for the great state of Victoria. Hunting is a legitimate activity that thousands of Victorians enjoy. In fact, there are some 58,000 licensed hunters in the state—folks who are passionate about conservation and the great outdoors. In 2020, a state government report found that the annual gross economic contribution of hunting was estimated to be $356 million, with $65 million of this coming from duck hunting alone. That's that around 20 per cent. Unfortunately, there are some in my home state who lack an appreciation for policy beyond the tram tracks and some who are ignorant of the importance that this has to regional communities, particularly in the state's east in Gippsland. The hunters who travel to the region support many local businesses: shops, hotels, B&Bs—you name it. Whilst being a strong supporter of the duck season, I also recognise the importance of it being conducted in a manner that is sustainable and responsible, and I welcome the Victorian government's changes to improve the knowledge and skill of hunters, compliance with game regulations and the recognition of traditional owners. I wish good and safe hunting to those who choose to participate this year. Poverty 34 13:34 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria On Monday, the Guardian reported that Australians experiencing homelessness are dying at an average age of 44, which is 30 to 40 years younger than the average Australian. This is tragic and completely inexcusable. Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We should be able to provide people with the support they need, particularly the basics of a roof above their head. Instead, too many people are living in cars or tents because they can't obtain secure and affordable housing. They can't get the health care they need, and they and their kids are going hungry because income support payments don't cover the costs of groceries. The cost-of-living crisis is a poverty crisis, and poverty is a political choice. While it was encouraging that Labor finally accepted that the stage 3 tax cuts were unfair, their proposed changes don't go far enough. A Parliamentary Budget Office costing commissioned by the Greens revealed that the lowest 40 per cent of income earners will receive just nine per cent of the benefits from these changes, and all of us parliamentarians will still get a $4,500-a-year cut. No-one in this place needs or deserves a $4,500-a-year tax cut. These rejigged stage 3 cuts will do diddly squat for the over five million people who receive income support payments or are struggling on low-paid work. What happened to Labour's promise to leave nobody behind? People experiencing homelessness are prematurely dying decades before other Australians. This is a national crisis, and it needs urgent and decisive action. Labor must urgently raise the rate of all income support payments to above the poverty line and commit to massively increased investment in public and community housing. We cannot afford to let this poverty crisis take any more lives. Dixon, Ms Ella 34 13:36 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania When Ella Dixon's parents decided they would emigrate from the Philippines to regional Australia when Ella was a small child, I'm sure they had no idea just how much that decision would shape her life and career in adulthood. That decision, which was the same decision as is made by thousands of migrants every year, was a defining moment in Ella's life, and she has made it her mission to ensure others have a positive experience upon their arrival in Tasmania. For the past decade, Ella has been at the helm of Launceston's Migrant Resource Centre North, shaping the experience of migrants settling in the region and the state. Each year, MRC North provides extensive support to around 500 migrants who settle in northern Tasmania. Recently, Ella announced that she would be stepping down from her role, and on behalf of the northern Tasmanian community I want to take this opportunity to thank her for her considerable contribution. As I have said in this place before, skilled migration is good for regional communities, and I'm sure the northern Tasmania community has grown in diversity and productivity as a result of the large numbers of migrants who have moved to our state to work and to raise a family. Their positive transition to life in Tasmania has been made smoother as a result of the lived experience, passion and empathy of Ella Dixon. Ella had an extensive career in the public service prior to joining MRC North. She will now move on to her new adventures, but I have no doubt that Migrant Resource Centre North will continue delivering that same incredible support and service to the migrant community under the guidance and leadership of the new CEO, Mark Deverell. I'm especially grateful for Ella's contribution to MRC North and I wish her well in the future for her future endeavours. Workplace Relations 35 13:38 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales In a few hours, we will vote on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. That bill gives gig workers and truck drivers life-saving minimum standards. I want to acknowledge Zhuoying Wang, who is in the gallery today, and her gig colleagues. Zhuoying is a HungryPanda rider who has bravely spoken out about HungryPanda's treatment of its workers. HungryPanda recently cut the base rate for deliveries from $7 to $4, 57 per cent of the previous rate. They introduced a bonus scheme where riders must complete a set number of orders in an unrealistic, unsafe time frame. It's dangerous, and workers are getting injured. Together with the Transport Workers Union, she has organised peaceful protests, just as three years ago HungryPanda faced six weeks of protests from riders over slashed pay and for sacking two riders who spoke out about it. The protests were successful, and those workers were reinstated. This time, HungryPanda has taken a different strategy. Instead of sacking Zhuoying, they've just stopped giving her orders. In 100 hours logged in to work, she has earned just $84. That's 84c an hour. Eighty-four cents an hour is the system that the Liberals and Nationals are trying to maintain. Zhuoying can't pay her rent. Her housemates are shouting her food. Despite all that, she's been here all week speaking to members and senators about the need for change. This afternoon, this chamber can do the right thing. Zhuoying told me: I hope all the riders will be treated fairly. I look forward to the bill passing, not just for me, but for justice for all gig workers and the whole transport industry. Good on you, Zhuoying. Aged Care 35 13:40 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania If you were asked by your boss to rate your work performance out of five, you'd probably give yourself a decent score. If you were asked to pick a few colleagues to rate your performance, you'd likely pick a few of your mates to put in a good word. We can all see the flaw in this kind of biased self-reporting, so why couldn't the government see it when they set up their aged-care star rating system? 'Failure', 'useless' and 'misleading' are the words experts are using to describe the system, which has been up and running since December 2022. The system relies on the aged-care facility rating itself on key indicators, and it relies on residents' feedback about a home's performance—residents that can be hand-picked by the facility management. Worst of all, the star rating system is giving some aged-care facilities four or five stars for compliance when they've actually been found non-compliant by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. How does that work? The star rating system was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, but it's not good enough to introduce a system and give yourself a pat on the back, saying, 'That's a job well done.' Surely if the royal commission taught us anything it was that, while boxes were being ticked, residents were being failed by the system that was supposed to be protecting them. So, while Labor may claim that they've done what the royal commission asked them to, the evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence suggests this is another system that has bureaucracy at its core, not people. We need a system that actually works for the people it's supposed to protect. It's good, then, that there's consultation open on a proposed new aged-care act. There's a chance for the Labor government to fix this mess and finally put people at the centre of the aged-care system, not red tape. Aviation Industry 36 13:42 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise to speak on an issue which is having a direct impact on my home state of Western Australia, but it's one that hasn't been widely remarked upon. Last week, a number of exemptions for flights out of Sydney airport to Western Australia were cancelled outside the curfew time. These exemptions were put in place during COVID, obviously due to the reduction in passenger flights and the increased demand for standalone freight flights. The return to the curfew times is, of course, under the law, and I accept that that is part of the arrangements that are in place, but we do have to consider the economic efficiency when freight across the Nullarbor, freight from that particular Sydney-to-Perth route, has grown by something like 50 per cent during that period. This is not just people ordering the latest gizmo off an online service; this is businesses that are relying on essential parts reaching their place of business in a timely way and farmers who need an essential part for a piece of machinery. Often those houses of parts are not held in Western Australia; they're held in Sydney, so being able to cross the Nullarbor rapidly on an air-freight service is absolutely vital. A lot of businesses use just-in-time inventory in this day and age, and so, again, those freight services across the Nullarbor via air are vitally important. So to reduce those linkages at this time, when the economy is under significant challenge, is something that does bear further consideration. Obviously the coalition has championed the Western Sydney airport, and hopefully that will alleviate some of these problems in time, but this is an issue that we do need to think about now for the economic efficiency of Australia. Closing the Gap 36 13:44 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The first review by the Productivity Commission into the progress of the Closing the Gap agreement was released this week. The review outlined the path forward for us in this place. That pathway requires a strong emphasis on self-determination, trust and power sharing with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Governments, including us in this place, must acknowledge and act on the reality that First Nations people know what is best for their communities. I am very fortunate to come from a state with a long and proud history of achievement and excellence from First Nations people. I grew up surrounded by and learning from elders and Aboriginal leaders who paved the way in self-determination. Victoria now leads the nation in ensuring decision-making powers are in Aboriginal hands. I hope the success of my home state can be a model in the national conversation around Aboriginal affairs going forward. We must continue to build on the strength and resilience of First Nations people to achieve better outcomes. The findings of the Productivity Commission's review and the promises made by government are not just simply words to me; this is my story, too. This is the story of my sons, my aunties, my uncles, my family and my community. It is the reason I stand here today and the reason I will continue to advocate for First Nations people. To my mob, I want to be clear: we hear you and we will continue to stand with you. As we shape future policy that will bridge the divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, I look forward to continuing the conversation that builds on our strength and resilience as a community together. After all, we are all accountable for delivering practical and lasting improvements for our First Nations people. This is not the end of the discussion. When looking into the future, there is a responsibility on governments to do better. As commissioners Romlie Mokak and Natalie Siegel-Brown so accurately describe it: We cannot afford to waste the opportunity that this Agreement presents. First Nations Australians 36 13:46 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia January is a tough month for many First Nations people around the country, and this one, in some ways, was especially tough, as the aftermath of the referendum is still hanging over us, despite the fact this government has moved on without a backup plan to help us address many of the issues and injustices that First Nations people still face. In some ways it was reassuring to be surrounded by our family, community and allies who are proud to show their love and respect for our culture which has sustained us for 65,000 years. We stood in the hurt of the past and mourned for all we have lost—our culture, our language, our sacred sites, our brothers and sisters and our children. But we also stood in healing. We cannot change the past. We cannot change the past of 236 years of colonisation, oppression, violence and attempts to completely wipe out First Nations people from our land—this land. We cannot change what our ancestors went through. But there is always time to change the present and to shape the future that we want to live in—a future that sees equality and equity for all that call Australia home. We are entering a new chapter, one of truth-telling and justice. It is now time for this place to establish a truth and justice commission and for all other parliaments across this country to do the same. It is beyond time to recognise the ancientness of this land, our culture and our peoples, and collectively preserve and respect those footprints of our old people, while holding space to give power to a future grounded in self-determination and human rights. It is time to speak openly about our past so that we can learn from it, heal together as a nation and move forward. Tradespeople 37 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory With Labor's last tranche of industrial relations legislation moving through the Senate, with amendments to protect the right of independent contractors to remain independent and for tradies to continue to run their businesses as they have, we need the Labor government to turn their attention to security of payments and the issues that tradies across this country face when it comes to simply being paid for work they have already done. In 2023 a staggering 2,349 construction firms collapsed; that represents nearly a third of all businesses that collapsed last year. And what's the government doing about tradies that are left out of pocket? So far, absolutely nothing. And it's not like this problem has just surfaced. Nearly seven years ago, John Murray did the Murray review and made 87 recommendations which address these very issues. We need to see the Murray review recommendations acted on. The 2021 ALP National Platform said that the recommendations in the review must be implemented immediately. Immediately means now—with urgency. We can't allow tradies to continue to be out of pocket for work that they've already done when the head contract falls over. We can change this. We have this report with a model that will work, and what's missing is the political will. I urge the Labor government: turn your attention to supporting tradies, who will be at the forefront of solving the housing crisis and the transition to renewables. Lobby Groups 37 13:50 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales We often hear from the Greens and teals about how big corporate interests are driving policy outcomes through donations. And they are right. Recent Australian Electoral Commission donor disclosures show just how much in tax-free donations the big green lobby groups have been receiving, often from environmental trust funds and some of Australia's richest families. But why does it take a regional publication like the Weekly Times to bring this to our attention? Where is the mainstream media? For example, the Australian Conservation Foundation, who lobbies actively to rip water out of the Murray Darling Basin, raked in more than $59 million over three years. GetUp! Got over $56 million, and Animals Australia raked in a massive $79 million over the same period that they now use to run campaigns and court cases against legitimate business like wild dog control, kangaroo culling, live exports, feedlots, poultry farming and abattoir gassing of pigs. Environmental and animal rights organisations rake in tens of millions of dollars, often by making emotive and dubious claims, and then lobby governments. You just have to look at this government's current policy on live exports to see it that it worked. Farming organisations cannot compete against these cartels. The rise of billionaire trust funds that feed into green lobby groups and lawfare campaigns as well as politicians' election campaigns should be looked at more closely. We need to know whether the piper is being paid and for what. It is not loose change. It is powerful multimillions of dollars, and that sort of money brings influence. Currency 37 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland A popular quote reads: 'Who controls the food supply controls the people. Who controls the energy can control a whole continent. Who controls money can control the whole world.' Only the ignorant could possibly look at the world as it is in 2024 and think, 'Nothing to see here.' Farmers who are having their land confiscated under net zero measures are spraying effluent at politicians. Immigrants complaining about their handouts are causing violence across the West, including in our own Queensland communities. Anyone who sees our stagnant national wealth growth being divided among 10 million more people over the last decade knows there is less for everybody. Apparently no-one, having done the sums [inaudible], can deny this. War has broken out in multiple locations, and the mainstream media are doing their best to fan those flames into a third world war. The unseen hands that guide these world events have shown themselves via their mouthpiece, the World Economic Forum. Yesterday, I spoke of how the World Economic Forum was trying to control the world's food and energy supply. Today, it's the third element of the doctrine of global control: money. At the recent World Economic Forum Davos meeting, Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, announced a digital currency for the European Central Bank to ensure they remain the anchor of the European financial system to protect their power and control over money. All World Economic Forum vassal states, including Australia, are producing a central bank digital currency while at the same time closing bank branches, eliminating cash and manipulating nongovernment crypto. By 2030, the only payment mechanism will be their own digital currency and digital ID. It's control of money. Then there's a final element: a set of misinformation and disinformation laws that will ensure any attempt to speak as I am speaking here today will result in having my digital ID and digital currency turned off for misinformation. The ALP, globalists, the Liberals and the Greens are promoting this dystopian future, coveting the power that comes with it. One Nation stands strongly opposed. The choice for voters is clear. Schools 38 13:54 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland This morning, during the debate on the bill that I introduced for full funding for public schools, Labor spent a lot of time talking up the deal that it has made with the WA government. Labor keeps telling us that this is a deal for full funding of schools in WA. Labor needs to stop misrepresenting the fact that this is not a deal for full funding. This is a deal to lock in public schools in WA—potentially, for the next decade—to 96 per cent of the schooling resource standard, and Labor needs to be upfront and tell the public that that is the case. Thanks to Morrison era accounting tricks, state governments can count things like bussing kids to school and capital depreciation on buildings as part of their contribution to public school funding. The deal that the WA Labor government and federal Labor have done allows the state to continue to include that four per cent of non-classroom-related funding in their deal to fully fund schools. So stop telling everyone that you're fully funding them, because you're not. And let's be clear: the schooling resource standard is the bare minimum, and you haven't even got to that. And I'm getting sick and tired of hearing how we need to tie stuff to outcomes. Try achieving outcomes when you've been systematically underfunded for over a decade. We see through you. Fund schools to a hundred per cent now! Energy 38 13:56 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria In 2022, I stood in this place and said of Labor's 43 per cent Paris target that I didn't think it was ambitious enough and I also couldn't see how they'd get there. One of the key platforms for getting there is building $100 billion worth of poles and wires. That's $100 billion worth of poles and wires that is underpinned or seed funded by $20 billion of taxpayers' money. The problem with this is that there is no social licence to operate for poles and wires. These projects are being pushed by AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator. Despite being owned by the federal government and state governments, AEMO is not accountable to anyone. Next week we have Senate estimates, and I cannot ask AEMO to come. There are so many doubts about their projects—what's actionable and what's not; how they're counting benefits and how they're not—and this is all for $100 billion worth of poles and wires. We all recognise that we need more renewables, but putting them out in places where there is no transmission and expecting the taxpayer and energy users to fund them is just a farce. We need accountability of AEMO. We need to be able to ask them questions and hold them to account for the actions that they're pushing on behalf of the foreign owned transmission companies. This total lack of accountability should be appalling to everyone in this place, and I will look to the AER next week for more answers. Parliamentary Friends of Lithuania 38 13:58 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales As the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Lithuania, I was fortunate earlier this week to host a visiting delegation of MPs from across the Lithuanian political spectrum who all share a common attribute: their respect and appreciation for the Australian people and Australian values. I want to thank those Lithuanian MPs, whose trip was facilitated by their very energetic ambassador, Darius Degutis. I acknowledge Andrius, Dalia, Giedrius and Ieva, who ably represented Lithuania. I note my appreciation for my colleagues Mr Neumann, Ms Templeman, Mr Entsch, Mr Khalil, Senators Fawcett, Sharma, Kovacic and Senator Paterson for their engagement with the delegation as well. Of particular importance to us all was the ongoing illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and our shared and unwavering commitment to supporting Kyiv in its efforts to protect the Ukrainian people. For its part, Lithuania has been one of the strongest advocates of Ukraine's independence and has made one of the largest per capita aid donations of any country, at 1.9 per cent of their GDP. Many of us take democracy as a given. We have never known anything else. But Australia stands with Lithuania not just because we share ideals, despite the distance, but because we know the Lithuanians have a voice that is stronger than most. They know democracy is not to be taken for granted. It is only three decades since they rose up and threw off their Russian oppressors. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for community statements has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 38 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 38 14:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. On 26 July 2021, in a media release, the Prime Minister, along with the Treasurer, said: An Albanese Labor Government will deliver the same legislated tax relief to more than 9 million Australians as the Morrison Government. The Shadow Cabinet and Caucus have today confirmed that Labor in government will uphold the legislated changes to personal income taxes and maintain the existing regimes for negative gearing and capital gains tax. Minister, given you have already broken your promise to uphold legislated changes to personal income taxes, will you now categorically rule out any changes to negative gearing? 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I was wondering where we were going with that. Senator Hume was outlining support for the policy that they now have changed their position on— Senator Hume 266499 The lie— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Hume, withdraw. Senator Hume 266499 I withdraw. Senator GALLAGHER ING I might start my answer by referring to the comment of the deputy opposition leader, Sussan Ley, from yesterday which was: 'You wouldn't expect me to pull out one ingredient or one part of tax reform, so I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to play the, 'Yes, this is good— Senator Hume 266499 President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I didn't ask about Ms Ley. I asked about a commitment that Labor made. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister's just started her response, so I will wait and see where it goes. Senator Wong 00AOU President, on the point of order, I again make the point that the fact that someone else spoke about a topic does not mean a reference to that person renders the answer not directly relevant. So I would submit to you on this occasion, on the topic that has been asked about, Ms Ley is very relevant. The PRESIDENT 112096 As I just indicated to Senator Hume, the minister has just started. I will continue to listen and, if the minister doesn't get to the substantive parts of the question, I will remind her. Senator GALLAGHER ING Just to finish that, she said: 'I am not going to play, "Yes, this is good," or "No, this is bad," and rule in or rule out. I am not going to do that.' So it's alright for the opposition not to have to do it, but, for some reason, it's a game that they would like us to engage in. We have been very clear about the tax reform that we are bringing forward. It's a tax reform that those opposite support. We accept it must have killed them to adopt Labor tax policy. It must have killed them to accept that Labor's policy was better than theirs, reached more people than stage 3 and was a fairer way to distribute that money. Senator Hume 266499 President, on relevance: you have given her another minute. She hasn't mentioned the words 'negative gearing'. That's what the question's about. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being directly relevant to your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING We've been very clear on the tax reform the government is undertaking. We have changed our position on income tax. They have changed their position on income tax. We have brought forward some sensible measures around superannuation. We have brought forward some sensible measures around PRRT. We are bringing forward some measures around multinational tax reform. And you want to talk about all the things we are not doing, because you don't want to talk about the things we are doing, because you support the things we are doing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a first supplementary? 14:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, what is Labor's policy on negative gearing? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, the law is very clear on what the negative gearing arrangements are. They remain in place. An opposition member interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING There is. There are legislative arrangements around negative gearing. But I would say that I understand that those opposite want to constantly talk about anything other— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 Madam President, on relevance, I didn't ask what the laws are. I asked what Labor's policy is. The PRESIDENT 112096 I do appreciate that, and the minister had just got to her feet to begin to answer your question. So, Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I've answered the question. I understand the desire not to speak about what the changes we are bringing to the parliament are. I understand that. I've answered the question. We understand it. First you said you'd vote against it. Then you said you'd reverse it. Then you said you'd roll it back. Senator GALLAGHER ING I know it's uncomfortable, Senator Birmingham; it's very uncomfortable. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X I have a point of order, and it goes to relevance on two fronts. I would contend that the minister has not answered the question. Senator Hume's very narrowly worded question focused on what the government's policy is, not what the law is. But I also point out that, if the minister believes she's answered the question, that's then not an invitation to use the residual time to talk about whatever she wants. The answer still needs to be directly relevant to the question asked. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, did you have a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU I was going to ask you to ask the Clerk for advice about whether or not the question of itself was in fact in order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. As the chamber would have seen, I did seek the advice of the Clerk, and the question is out of order, pursuant to standing order 73, because that says that you can't directly ask about specific government policies—for a statement of policy. So, the minister is quite within her rights to answer the question in whatever way she sees fit. The PRESIDENT 112096 I said standing order 73, Senator Hume, and I did seek the advice of the Clerk. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. And the policy that we have bought before the parliament is the income tax policy—the income tax policy that you wanted to call an election on, but now your are in support of it. Before that you said you were against it, before you even saw it. Then you were going to reverse it. Then you were going to roll it back. Then we saw the crab walking away when you realised, 'Oh, wait on: we've looked in the tea-leaves, and this isn't going so well', and you adopted it. And now you want to talk about everything else. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a second supplementary? 14:08 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, can you categorically rule out that Treasury has provided you with options to change Australia's negative gearing framework or capital gains framework after the call from your legislative partners, the Greens? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory What I can confirm for Senator Hume is that this government remains completely focused on looking at ways to alleviate cost-of-living pressures on Australians, which is why we have brought the income tax changes to this parliament. That is the work that we are doing. That is the work we did over summer. That is the work we did in our first budget. That's the work we did in our second budget, in our MYEFO. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 A point of order on relevance: I mentioned negative gearing and capital gains. I did not mention cost of living and I did not mention personal income taxes. The PRESIDENT 112096 You did talk about advice from Treasury, so I think the minister is being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm answering the question you asked around the advice that the Treasury provides. I told you that the government has sought advice and support from our departments around cost-of-living relief. That's what you've seen flow through our budgets. And it's what you've voted against time after time, so no wonder your question didn't have 'cost of living' in it—because you have voted against the cost-of-living measures when they have come here. We will work with departments to ensure that we can provide cost-of-living relief where we can and where we can responsibly afford to do so. Taxation 40 14:10 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. I note that the Prime Minister said that he wants Australians to 'earn more and keep more of what they earn' and that Labor's plan will deliver a tax cut to all Australians. Can you please explain why the Albanese Labor government has made the decision to tackle cost-of-living pressures and deliver a tax cut to all Australians? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Polley for that question. Cost-of-living relief is the highest priority of this government. It's our top priority. As of 1 July this year, every Australian taxpayer will get to keep more of what they earn—that's 13.6 million Australians—because the Albanese Labor government is working for every Australian. It's in Labor's DNA, unlike those opposite. These tax cuts offer relief and reform—more relief for workers and better reform for our economy. Labor is doing the right thing for the right reasons. Treasury is clear that the plan does not add to inflation. Labor's tax cut is backed by Treasury. It went through ERC, cabinet, ministry and caucus. We're unlike the last government, led by a prime minister with secret portfolios who governed for himself rather than all Australians. Colleagues, it's clear that things aren't any better under Mr Dutton. After the government said it would deliver tax cuts, Senator Cash said they would 'oppose tax cuts' and Senator Birmingham said they were not going to be supporting Labor—because their reflex is always to oppose, even if it means they are not supporting Australians. Of course, if those opposite had considered the detail and the facts—that Labor's plan benefits every single Australian taxpayer and that it puts more money into the pockets of hardworking Australians—then maybe the Leader of the Opposition wouldn't have been so humiliated on national television last night. The reason the opposition have had to support these tax cuts is that they know in their heart of hearts it's the right thing to do. They know Labor has done the right thing. They know Labor's tax cuts will deliver bigger tax cuts for more Australians, and more Australians will be better off as a result. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, first supplementary? 14:13 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Can the minister please inform the Senate about who, in my home state of Tasmania, will be better off because of Labor's tax plan? 14:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Polley for her question. She, of course, is one of the great Tasmanian Senate team for Labor, and they all know that every single taxpayer in Tasmania and around the country will be better off as a result of these tax cuts. In fact, in Senator Polley's home state of Tasmania, nine in 10 taxpayers will receive a bigger cut than they would have under the Morrison government's policies. Nine in 10—280,000 people—will pay less tax than they are now. We know hardworking women are likely to earn less. In Tasmania, about 140,000 women will get a tax cut, and 94 per cent of them will get more than they would have under the Morrison-Dutton plan. So I'd say to Senator Duniam, Senator Chandler, Senator Colbeck and Senator Askew, why is it that our Senate team can do so much more for Tasmanians, and particularly Tasmanian women, than you ever could? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Polley, second supplementary? 14:14 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Can the minister please tell the Senate how the Albanese government listens and responds to Australians across a range of issues, including the cost of living? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator, who, like all members of the Albanese government, is engaged with her community. Meanwhile, I have to say the response from those opposite shows they clearly don't listen, although we already know this. They didn't listen at the last election to those many Australians who demanded action on climate change, and, certainly, Senator Caravan is still not listening. There are those who choose a bit of conspiracy and echo chambers over evidence and listening. On Monday night, more of the Liberals' and Nationals' self-serving attitudes were exposed. Mr Turnbull said, 'The former government treated Australia as a plaything.' Senator Reynolds said, 'People were blackmailed and threatened into supporting Mr Dutton,' and Mr Morrison said, 'Mr Dutton was seen as a great intolerant threat to the moderates.' I don't think we have to say much more than what they say about themselves. We on this side do the right thing for the right reasons, and we always will. Taxation 41 14:16 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Unfortunately, Penny, my question's not to you, but my question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, on 28 November 2022, in response to Senator McDonald, you said: The government has no plans for a mining tax. The Prime Minister has been very clear on that. The Treasurer has been clear on that. On 8 February 2023, in question time, the Prime Minister ruled out any changes to the fuel tax credits scheme. Considering both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have repeatedly reassured Australians that they had no plans to change the stage 3 tax cuts and then broke that promise, how long will it be before you betray the trust of the Australian people again and introduce a mining tax or undermine the fuel tax credits scheme? 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Canavan for the question. Again, I think there is an obvious reason why they don't want to talk about the change that we have brought forward on tax—the change that the parliament will be considering, the one that the House has been considering and, indeed, the one that you have adopted. And, by adopting that policy, you have accepted that it was the right thing to do—to change our position; that it was a fairer way of applying those tax cuts; that it got to more people—bigger tax cuts to more people, and everybody gets a tax cut. You have accepted that as your policy and, in doing so, you now want to talk about everything that we are not doing. The Prime Minister has fronted up and he has explained to the Australian people why he has changed his mind and why the government have changed our minds. It is to ensure that the tax cuts reach more people and that the average taxpayer gets a much bigger tax cut, that 90 per cent of women get a bigger tax cut when they're paying tax and that a hundred per cent of women taxpayers get a tax cut. And you want to talk about other things. We have a full book of tax reform. How about you work with us— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, on super. You find us. You work with us on super, on PRRT, on multinational— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. I'm waiting for the chamber to come to order. Senator McGrath. Senator McGrath 217241 I would ask the minister to table the full book on tax reform. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, please resume your seat. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING You opposite are an absolute rabble. If that's the best you can do—an absolute rabble—to channel one of our former colleagues. The tax reforms we have brought to this parliament that you refuse to deal with are the reforms that the government have on our agenda. That is what they are. You want to talk about all the things we are not doing—that are not proposals by this government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, first supplementary? 14:19 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Minister, as part of the same answer in November 2022 that I referred to in the first question, you told the chamber, 'We are not a government that breaks promises.' Will you repeat your prior statements and your promise to not introduce a mining tax and rule out any change to the fuel tax credit scheme? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The opposition deputy leader said yesterday, and I will again start my answer with that, 'I'm not going to play the "Yes, this is good; no, this is bad," the rule in, rule out. I'm just not going to do it. You wouldn't expect me to pull out one ingredient or one part of tax reform.' You are so clearly embarrassed by the position you have taken, by the backflip, by your adoption of our policy that you're scrapping around looking in that drawer for scare campaigns of 'what next?' because you've actually had to capitulate and accept that our policy on tax is the better policy. When it comes to tax reform, I have been clear. We have income tax reform. We have multinational tax reform. We have high-balance-super-accounts reform. We have PRRT reform. Those reforms are before the parliament. That is the government's tax reform agenda. You might want to talk about all the things we're not doing, because you're so embarrassed about the fact that the decision we took was the right one. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm waiting for quiet. Senator Canavan, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I haven't heard a single commitment to not change the fuel tax credits scheme, in two answers. Minister, could you reassure the 1.1 million people who work directly or indirectly in the resources sector, or the millions more who work with and rely on our farmers, that you will not break yet another promise and introduce a mining tax or change the fuel tax credit scheme? 14:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I have been clear, Senator Canavan. I don't think I can be clearer. You were all yelling at me, so maybe you didn't hear. I explained the government's tax reform agenda, some of which you have adopted and other parts of which you are blocking. The rule in, rule out game is fine for everybody else but not for you. We have been very clear what our tax reform is. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hume, you are yelling across the chamber—so much so that I am having to substantially raise my voice to get order. You are being disorderly. I'm asking you to stop doing it. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Measures that have been raised here by Senator Hume and Senator Canavan are not and do not form part of the government's tax agenda. That is a very clear answer for all of you who quite can't seem to grapple with it and can't quite can't seem to understand. Our tax reforms in the parliament include income tax, PRRT, high-balance super accounts and multinational tax reform. It's all there for people to see. We've been upfront. We've explained the position. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, we have, Senator McGrath. You might not understand it, or you might not want to understand it— (Time expired) Middle East 43 14:22 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Minister, Australian exports that end up in Israel, whether they are parts of F35 fighter planes, engines for drones used by the IDF, material for vehicle armour or any other number of types of military equipment, risk being used to carry out genocide. Furthermore, your own department's recently released figures show that even in October 2023 Australia provided further arms and ammunition to the state of Israel. The International Court of Justice found that there's a plausible case of genocide being committed by the state of Israel on the population of Gaza. Following this finding, why has your government not publicly and clearly announced an urgent ban on the export of military equipment to Israel? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There are a number of assertions in that question that I might respond to. First, on the ICJ, I would refer you to my answer to Senator Faruqi yesterday, where I referenced the joint statement with New Zealand in relation to the findings of the International Court of Justice and the expectation Australia has articulated that Israel will comply with the findings and statements of that court. The second point I would make—and I appreciate that you asked that with a slightly better tone on this occasion—is that I do think there's been a lot of misinformation and disinformation, some of which was included in your question, in a debate which has seen some of the worst social disharmony in our country in many years, certainly since I can remember. Everyone in this chamber, including the Greens, has a responsibility to deal with differences of opinion, which are very deeply felt, in ways which are respectful and which do not rely on disinformation, misinformation and false facts. Senator Shoebridge 169119 From your own department. Senator WONG 00AOU Excuse me? This is an example of the lack of ability to have a discussion with some courtesy about the Middle East. This is really an example. The fact that you are interjecting when I'm responding to you is another example of it. We have seen the sorts of vitriol on social media and the sorts of falsehoods that are stated, some of which this party repeats in this chamber. I would have hoped that a progressive party might actually prioritise social harmony in these times. You're entitled to your views in a democracy. I have seen some of what people have said, including those in this chamber, where they know it to be false. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary? 14:25 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minster, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, you prohibited the export of aluminium to Moscow, as it formed 'key components in the manufacture and development of weapons', yet, under the Albanese government, Australia continues to export millions of dollars of aluminium to the State of Israel, which recent reports by Israeli media made clear is being used in the manufacture of domestic weapons. Why haven't you publicly prohibited the export to the State of Israel of aluminium and other materials that can be used to make weapons, given there's a plausible case of genocide? 14:26 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Because I didn't get a chance to do so in the first answer, can I first reiterate what the government has made clear and what I have made clear in this chamber on numerous occasions: Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel since the conflict began and for at least the past five years. An honourable senator: That's not the question. Senator WONG 00AOU It was an answer to the first question. Notwithstanding the fact that you assert something else publicly, Senator Shoebridge, it is the answer that I have been advised by the department. In relation to the second, this is where there is a difference between the government and the Greens. We do not have a policy of boycotting all exports to Israel. I appreciate that is the position that you are seeking, but we do not have a policy of disengaging from Israel economically. I appreciate you have a different view— Senator Shoebridge 169119 Aluminium. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, if you wish to take note of a question, you have that opportunity after question time. Indeed, you have estimates next week. When you've asked your question, I ask that you listen in respectful silence and do not keep constantly interjecting. Minister, your time has expired. Second supplementary, Senator Shoebridge? 14:27 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales () (): Following allegations from the State of Israel concerning less than 0.1 per cent of UNRWA members that are no longer in the organisation, your government almost immediately and publicly withdrew integral funding, endangering the lives of thousands and thousands of innocent Palestinians. Why is the Albanese government so willing to take actions that harm Palestinians based on allegations from the Israeli government, yet you're not willing to take any decisive actions to protect Palestinians after the ICJ found a plausible case of genocide? (Time expired) 14:28 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I wonder if Senator Shoebridge issued a press release welcoming the doubling of the core funding of UNRWA when Labor did that. Did he issue a press release? Or did Senator Faruqi or any of the Greens issue a press release congratulating us and recognising how important that was? Did you do that? No. Because actually your focus is how you use this conflict to extract votes, and it is reprehensible. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge? Senator Shoebridge 169119 The minister is not being responsive. It is question time. We ask the questions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, do you have a point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 My point of order is that the minster is not being relevant. She's out of order asking questions rather than providing answers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, I will listen carefully to the rest of the minster's response. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I said yesterday, in answer to a question from Senator Faruqi, that I think there are two irrefutable facts in relation to UNRWA. One is that it is necessary in order to deliver humanitarian support in the occupied Palestinian territories, in particular in Gaza at this time—absolutely, which is why we increased the funding. The second irrefutable fact is that serious allegations have been made. I spoke yesterday with the chief of UNRWA about what measures can be taken to resolve this issue, because we are being constructive. (Time expired) Taxation 44 14:30 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. How will health workers and their patients benefit from Labor's tax cuts? How is this building on the measures already introduced by the Albanese government to help make health care affordable for all Australians? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question and for the work she does as an advocate for the people of Victoria, particularly care economy workers across her state. There are more than 650,000 health workers in Australia: nurses, doctors, allied health workers and more. Every day they work hard. They turn up, and they work a hard day to keep us all healthy and safe. During the worst times of the pandemic, as all of us in this place knew, they worked hard to keep us safe, often placing themselves in danger to do so. Our government wants Australian workers to earn more, and we want them to keep more of what they earn. That's why on 1 July, Labor will deliver a tax cut to every single health worker in Australia to help with the cost of living—not just to some of them but to every single one of those 650,000 health workers. A typical nurse earning $76,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $1,579, which is around double what they would have earned under the old plan of five years ago. Every single one of their patients who is paying tax will receive a tax cut as well—not just some of them, but every single one of them—reinforcing our determination to build on the measures we rolled out over the course of last year to help middle Australia with cost-of-living pressures. We're also taking a range of actions to make health care more affordable for Australians. Under Labor's Medicare urgent-care clinics, we're making it easier for people to get the urgent treatment they need when they need it and without having to pay for it. Senator Walsh will be happy to hear that the doctors and nurses across Victoria responded to almost 66,000 presentations across the 10 urgent-care clinics in Victoria. There have been more than 150,000 presentations to the 58 Medicare urgent-care clinics that are now open and seeing patients across Australia, taking pressure off emergency departments and saving over $42.5 million in avoided patient episodes. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, a first supplementary? 14:32 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Labor created Medicare to make Australia's health system cheaper, simpler and fairer. Labor knew then, like we know now, that Australians need a government that understands the impact health care can have on the family budget. Forty years on, why is it important to strengthen Medicare? What is the Albanese government doing to ensure that Medicare remains strong? 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for her question and thank her again for the work she is doing in Victoria in ensuring more equitable access to Medicare services for the Victorian community. It's true. This year we celebrate the 40th birthday of Medicare. Before Medicare, one in seven Australians didn't have health coverage, and unpaid medical bills were the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in this country. Thanks to that landmark Labor reform, we now live in a country that has a healthcare system that's No. 1 in the world when it comes to health outcomes and when it comes to equity. Bulk-billing rates were in freefall when we came to government, and that's why we tripled the bulk-billing incentive in last year's budget. Not only has that stopped the slide in bulk-billing rates but also in the first two months we saw an additional 360,000 free visits to the doctor. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Walsh, in Victoria: Victoria saved almost— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, resume your seat. Senator Wong 00AOU Can Senator Ruston please withdraw that? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, I didn't hear it, but I'm sure Senator Ruston— Senator Ruston 243273 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you—$3 million due to this policy, with an extra 71,000 visits bulk-billed. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, a second supplementary? 14:34 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Minister, since coming to government, Labor has made medicines cheaper, opened 58 Medicare urgent-care clinics and tripled the Medicare bulk-billing incentive. How will Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts complement these measures and strengthen Medicare? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think Senator Walsh for the question. As she outlined in that question, the cost-of-living tax cuts complement the other investments we are making in a whole range of areas. In relation to the question on strengthening Medicare: whether it be the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, whether it be the urgent care clinics that are up and running or whether it be the cheaper medicines—and we've seen patients have saved $240 million in medicine costs thanks to the biggest cut in the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS. In four weeks time 100 more medicines will be added to the 60-day script list, saving Australian patients even more money at the pharmacist. In Victoria, Victorians have saved $63 million due to the co-payment reductions on scripts. This is again real money left in the pockets of the Australian people so they have more money to spend on the things that they need. Aged Care 45 14:35 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. In December 2022 the government introduced a star rating system for aged-care facilities. The idea was to provide accessible and reliable information about the quality of aged care. Recently it has been reported that experts have criticised the system, claiming that it's a poor functioning system resulting in high rankings for potentially substandard facilities. They say the data provided by aged-care facilities is not vetted or checked thoroughly, meaning it isn't accurate. Minister, do you believe that Australians can rely on this system to ensure they or their loved ones receive the best-quality aged care? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question and for her ongoing advocacy around aged care and residents of aged care, in particular residents of aged care in Tasmania. The Minister for Aged Care, through her reform agenda, is working incredibly hard to improve the standard of care across the aged-care system. Remember, we did inherit a system that had been heavily criticised under a royal commission, with a report that was titled Neglect. That report outlined the fact that the system was under enormous pressure, that there wasn't adequate investment into that system and that the system needed to change in a number of ways. We needed to ensure that appropriate investments were made into the workforce; we have done that. We also needed to make sure that there was more accountability and transparency around the care that is provided and the quality and the care minutes in particular that residents received, and those aged-care facilities should have to measure the quality of the care that they provide in a very public way—which is what the star rating system is about. When you introduce those kinds of rating systems, it's more about driving improvements than about punishment because services will work hard to improve the star rating they get in order to project the quality of care and, therefore, attract residents to that service. It also gives families and residents—or would-be residents—information about those services that are either exceeding or going to a high level of quality of care. For anyone that needs to go into aged care, I think their families are always looking for the best possible place for the best possible care for their loved ones, and I think the star rating drives that kind of reform. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:38 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Across the four criteria assessed for a star rating, 'resident experience' counts towards one-third of the overall rating. However, an assessment can be determined by using as little as 10 per cent of the residents. This means that the provider could potentially rig the assessments by choosing which residents participate in the survey. Minister, is it possible that ratings have been manipulated through the use of dodgy data? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I will come back if there's anything further that I can add to this. When you introduce a system, it's always appropriate that you look at how that system is being implemented and that you ensure the data being used is appropriate and reflects the true picture—and it's not only star ratings; it's also, through the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, the ability to do other and further checks and to respond to any complaints that are made. In aged care, some of the reasons around the threshold of the number of residents that might participate in that survey would be lower, potentially because of the nature of the care requirements of some of the residents. It is an important part of the star rating system, but nobody in aged care—and I've met a lot of providers and a lot of families over the years—would be wanting to see a system that didn't provide an accurate representation of the quality of care in those facilities. If there is any one you're worried about, we will be happy to follow up. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrell, a second supplementary question? 14:40 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The latest Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Performance Report shows that nearly one in five residential aged-care services were less than fully compliant, yet many of these services are still receiving four- and five-star compliance ratings in the star ratings system. Minister, does the government admit that this system is a failure and is putting people at risk? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No, I wouldn't accept that and the government wouldn't accept that. I think it is an important area of improving transparency and accountability across the residential aged-care sector. But it is a new system and, where we are getting feedback, that feedback should be looked at and assessed to see if there is anything to that. You can see where star ratings have been applied in other areas of public information. It is much more about driving improvements rather than penalising and punishing. That's the whole idea of introducing one. It sits alongside other quality measures that are required for the aged-care sector. But look, we accept that the standard of care in aged care hasn't been what Australian people expected or what elderly Australians expect and should receive. The sector is under enormous reform but I'm confident that through the work of the minister, aged-care providers and the department we will get there. Environmental Defenders Office 46 14:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator Wong. Last month, in one of the most scathing Federal Court judgements in memory, Justice Natalie Charlesworth found: that the actions of the Environmental Defenders Office and its team were severely lacking in integrity; that they distorted, misrepresented and confected evidence; and that they manipulated and coached a number of traditional owners in the Munkara and Santos case. Especially after all of the warnings that the government was given about the problems, including green lawfare and the social and economic devastation that it would trigger, does the Albanese Labor government finally now concede that its October 2022 budget decision to supply $8.3 million to the EDO was a terrible, terrible waste of taxpayers' money? 14:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Duniam for the question. Justice Charlesworth's comments speak for themselves. Senator WONG 00AOU Well, Senator Whish-Wilson, I don't think anybody, regardless of their political persuasion, can suggest that some of the actions which were commented on by the judge are appropriate. So I do take that view. I understand that the minister has written to the CEO of the EDO, making clear that the expectation is that the office act ethically and professionally, and that the minister has asked her department to ensure that the EDO's conduct is in accordance with their grant agreement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a first supplementary question? 14:43 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania A slap on the wrists! During question time on 28 November last year, Minister, you responded to my question on the fact that the EDO was engaging in claim farming and was exploiting consultation processes by saying that, if it was the case: … they should be brought to the attention of the legislature and the executive. Minister, the legislature was bypassed in the approval of funding for this organisation and the judiciary has slammed, as you've just mentioned, the EDO's dreadfully unethical practices. So I ask the executive, through you: will the government now cease funding this terrible organisation? 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I simply refer back to my earlier answer, which is that I am advised that the minister has asked the secretary of her department to ensure that the EDO's conduct is in accordance with their grant agreement. Obviously the government will receive that advice and the government will consider that and the matters to which you referred. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a second supplementary question? 14:44 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania This organisation is holding up dozens of projects, putting at risk thousands of the jobs of hardworking men and women across the country. Will the minister inform the Senate and Australians as to why this government won't cut funding to this organisation now? 14:44 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have responded previously on the principle of why grants are made to legal organisations— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! The minister is on her feet answering Senator Duniam's questions, and there's chatter across the chamber. I've asked you to come to order. Minister, do you have more to say? Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you, yes. I have responded previously, Senator Duniam, to your earlier questions prior to this case about the principles which underlie the government funding an organisation, whether or not we agree with the organisation, in a system where there is the rule of law that enables appropriate actions to be considered. Obviously, what we have now is a judgement with some substantial criticism of the EDO by Justice Charlesworth, and, as I've informed the Senate, the minister has asked her department to provide advice about whether or not the EDO's conduct is in accordance with the grant agreement. (Time expired) Fuel Excise 47 14:46 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. Minister, around a third of the price of our fuel is tax. There is a fuel excise of 49.6c per litre and, on top of this, 17.9c per litre in GST. That GST is also charged on the fuel excise, and that essentially is a tax on a tax, so to speak. Is it fair that hardworking Australians are being slugged with what is really a double tax when they go to the fuel bowser? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I know there are a lot of opinions about what is fair and what is unfair when it comes to tax arrangements, but the fuel excise arrangements have been a longstanding line of revenue that essentially goes to fund states' and territories' road infrastructure. You can look through the tax arrangements across government to see where revenue raised then goes on to deliver services and infrastructure. So that is an important reason behind the fuel excise. Under those arrangements, there are standard indexation arrangements that are applied, which come into effect, but we also need to ensure that the transport infrastructure—the roads and services that are needed—can be funded. So they're the arrangements that are in place. We haven't changed them. The last reduction, I think, ended in September 2022, when the former Liberal government had legislated for those arrangements to end. Whilst a lot of people come forward with ideas about where you could cut taxes or reduce revenue to government, there's also an increasing need to provide services and make investments across government. The top five areas, of course, are: dealing with the increasing interest charges on the debt that we inherited; aged care; NDIS; defence; and health. Those are very fast-growing areas of government, and governments need to collect revenue to fund those. If we don't collect it then you have to start cutting back on those services, and I can't see, in any of those five areas, opportunities to cut investments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Of the funds generated by the fuel excise, obviously some goes into general revenue. We all know that one. But what percentage of these funds goes towards road infrastructure specifically? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'll come back if there's more information that I can provide, but over $1 billion was credited in the 2021-22 year for the Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Special Account for payments to states and territories. Then, of course, we fund other infrastructure arrangements with states and territories, including road infrastructure, through other investments through the infrastructure portfolio as well. But that is the standard arrangement. Everyone realises that revenue going into consolidated revenue goes to fund all of those other areas that the federal government is responsible for, whether it be defence, immigration, home affairs, cybersecurity, aged care, health, environment—there's no shortage of areas where there's vying competition for funds out of consolidated revenue. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, a second supplementary? 14:50 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Obviously you're pursuing a net zero agenda, and your government sees electric cars as a key component of that transition. But, with more and more EVs on our roads, is it fair that these EV owners do not pay any fuel tax or equivalent tax? What is the government going to do to ensure that EV owners pay their fair share for all those services that you've just talked about? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I understand some state treasurers have been keen to discuss matters around that with the federal government, and I'm sure those discussions will continue. But we are pursuing net zero, and we're pursuing net zero not only for the improvements that it will bring for future generations but also to seize the economic opportunities that come with that transformation that's happening around the world. As much as many people in this chamber would like to put their head in the sand over it, it's happening. It's happening in global markets, it's happening in the money markets—it's happening across the board. We think Australia should be a part of that. We should be ready to seize the economic opportunities that come with that transformation, whether it be in jobs, exports or, certainly for future generations, the improvement in energy and reliability. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, I have called you about four times, and Senator McKenzie equally. Tourism Industry, Taxation 48 14:51 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Tourism is vital to communities across Australia, particularly in regional economies, where hundreds of thousands across the country are employed in that industry, including in my home state of New South Wales. Workers in the industry who keep the industry going are often on lower and middle incomes. Can the minister outline to the Senate how Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts will help workers in Australia's tourism and hospitality industry? 14:52 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon both for the great work he does in New South Wales, as a New South Wales Senator, and for the particular interest that he takes in the tourism industry. I can answer this question. Under Labor's tax cuts, every Australian taxpayer gets a cut. That's 13.6 million Australians from 1 July with more money in their pockets. In fact, in Senator Sheldon's home state of New South Wales, 83 per cent of taxpayers will receive an even bigger tax cut. Many of those getting bigger tax cuts will be the hundreds of thousands of Australians who work in the tourism industry. The tourism sector supports Australian jobs in a range of industries, from accommodation and food services to the arts, recreation, aviation and events. That includes the cleaners in hotels in Sydney, waiters at restaurants in Melbourne, tour guides in national parks like Kakadu, boat crews on our Great Barrier Reef, and cellar door staff at fantastic wineries in South Australia. Many young Australians work in the tourism industry, and Labor's tax cuts are good news for them, with 1.5 million Australians aged 18 to 24 benefiting from an average tax cut of $1,007. More than half, 55 per cent, of workers in tourism jobs are women, who, under the Labor tax cuts, are going to be an average of $1,649 a year better off. The Australian tourism industry and its workers have done it tough in recent years. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a first supplementary? 14:54 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I think the fact that 83 per cent of taxpayers will be better off is going to make a real difference to cost-of-living pressures. Can the minister update the Senate on what other work the Albanese Labor government is doing to support the tourism industry, including to grow and strengthen the industry's workforce? 14:54 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon for his first supplementary question. Our support for the industry is being delivered across government. Labor's tax cuts, putting money back into the pockets of tourism workers, are just the beginning. Senator McKenzie 207825 And your IR policy! Senator FARRELL I0N That is going to help too, Senator McKenzie. It's going to help boost jobs and boost incomes as well as the tax cuts. The Albanese Labor government are delivering on our $48 million tourism support package to help the tourism industry recover from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We have delivered the Choose Tourism Grant Program to attract more workers to the sector. They will now get a bigger tax cut thanks to this government. We have also funded Tourism Australia to roll out the $125 million Come and Say G'day campaign and funded the reviving international tourism package, reconnecting industry with— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary? 14:56 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales It's fantastic to hear that Labor's tax cuts will delivered much-needed support for tourism workers, including those in Tropical North Queensland who have been hit hard by cyclones Jasper and Kirrily. Can the minister update the Senate on any other measures the Albanese government has taken to support the tourism workers and industry in Tropical North Queensland in the wake of these disasters? 14:56 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon for his second supplementary question. Our government is working closely with the Queensland government to support Tropical North Queensland, where tourism is a vital part of the local economy, as Senator Watt would know and as Senator Green would know very well. Eligible operators can now apply to the $10 million Tourism Exceptional Assistance Grants Program, aimed at businesses suffering exceptional impacts due to flooding caused by Tropical Cyclone Jasper. We're also supporting discounted flights, vouchers and a major campaign, launched on Saturday, to market Tropical North Queensland holidays. These are just some of the support measures that we are delivering to help tourism businesses in Tropical North Queensland to get through the tough times. (Time expired) United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 49 14:57 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. In Senate estimates last June, the coalition raised questions about education materials promoting antisemitism, glorification of violence and martyrdom being used in UNRWA schools. DFAT told the committee it had made representations to UNRWA about its neutrality and that: UNRWA has obligations written into its contracts requiring it to undertake due diligence and risk management activities … we work with them on governance mechanisms to ensure that they comply with that. Also: … Australia assesses UNRWA's performance yearly … Minister, how did you assure yourself that UNRWA had met its contractual obligations to not allow funds to support terrorism and extremism before you authorised the full $20 million to be paid by January 2024? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The first point I would make to the senator is that UNRWA has been funded by Australian governments of both stripes since 1951 and is also funded by our closest partners—the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. We also know—and this is relevant—that currently about 1.4 million Palestinians are sheltering in UNRWA facilities. Thousands of its staff are involved in the humanitarian response. I would make the point that the government, as DFAT said in estimates, have agreements with UNRWA that prohibit Hamas or any other terrorist organisations from receiving funding. These requirements are closely monitored and applied by DFAT. I also would say to you—and I'll provide further information when I find it—that further consideration by the department did occur in the context, I think, of the 2022-23 budget. What I would say to you is this: there are two very clear facts about UNRWA. The first is that UNRWA is the only organisation capable of delivering assistance into Gaza. And, in a context where you have 400,000 Palestinians starving, a million facing starvation and 1.7 million people displaced, that does matter. The other irrefutable fact is that serious allegations have been raised, which is why the government has paused funding and is engaging with UNRWA and with partners, including in the context of the investigations which have been raised. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Minister, reports of UNRWA staff members participating in the holding of Israelis taken hostage by Hamas on 7 October were public in December 2023. On 19 December, the Australian Jewish community wrote to you and the Prime Minister warning that UNRWA had been aiding and abetting Hamas, including during the horrific 7 October attacks. In early January, UN Watch released extensive materials showing UNRWA staff celebrating the terror attacks. Minister, what assessment did you undertake of this evidence and these warnings before announcing an additional $6 million for UNRWA on 16 January? 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can I first go back to the point in the question that was first raised. I can advise that I received advice on UNRWA from my department last year prior to the disbursement of Australia's core funding for 2023-24. The advice to me, based on an independently audited review, was that there was no evidence that funds had been diverted and that our key partners, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, who all fund UNRWA, held the same view. In relation to the letter from community representatives, I would make the point that I am aware of that letter. I do know these are not new views. They're views that have been expressed for many years by individuals and organisations who do not support the Australian government continuing to fund UNRWA. By the time we received the letter, my officials had already acted on the issues it raised, which had been identified in a November report by UN Watch, as you said, and the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Minister, your department told the committee last June: 'We are working with governance mechanisms to ensure that our funding goes to the right people.' In October last year, you announced in total an extra $25 million for humanitarian assistance in Gaza and the region, of which $12 million was to go to unnamed UN agencies or trusted partners to address needs. How much of this funding went to UNRWA, and how does the provision of aid through other UN agencies tally with the government's assertion that funding UNRWA is the only way to provide aid to the people of Gaza? (Time expired) 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll provide information about the October announcement. My recollection is that it was UN organisations, including UNICEF, and also the International Committee of the Red Cross, but I will confirm the detail of that with you. Senator Chandler, I don't believe it is disputed, at the point where we are in Gaza, that the UNRWA is the only entity on the ground that is able to deliver aid and humanitarian relief at scale. The Israeli government officials with whom I spoke would accept that. It may be that people don't like the entity, and I appreciate that that is where you are coming from, but I don't think it is disputed that there is no other organisation that is capable of delivering assistance in that way. That is consistent with the discussions I had in Israel and consistent with the discussions I have had with officials of the UN and also the International Committee of the Red Cross. On that basis, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 50 15:04 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of answers to all questions from coalition senators. 'My word is my bond.' Senator Birmingham H6X I believe you, Senator Scarr. Senator SCARR 282997 Thank you very much, Opposition Leader—as I believe you. 'My word is my bond.' That is what the Prime Minister said to the Australian people before the last election in the context of the stage 3 tax cuts. I have a basic principle: if you say something, if you promise something before an election, you should actually do what you promise after the election. It's a pretty basic principle, and I would have thought most Australians who voted at the last federal government election would agree with that principle. But now we have an issue. If we couldn't believe the Prime Minister before the election, when he said his word is his bond, how do we believe anything the Prime Minister says in the context of Australia's taxation policy? During the course of this question time, taxation policy in relation to negative gearing; capital gains tax, including the 25 per cent discount after one year; the non-application of capital gains tax to the principal place of residence; the mining tax; the diesel fuel rebate—a whole raft of taxation policies have now been reopened. Senator Cadell 300134 They're in the book! Senator SCARR 282997 Absolutely. They're in the book, as Senator Cadell says. And then what happened after the election? As recently as mid-December, when Australia was already in a cost-of-living crisis, the Prime Minister said, 'We're not reconsidering the position with respect to the stage 3 tax cuts.' At the same time that the Prime Minister made that statement, Treasury was working on a change to the position, at the same time there were people in the Treasury department here in Canberra working on a change to the position. So first we've got 'My word is my bond.' After the election we got 'We're not reconsidering our position,' but at the same time Treasury was working to implement a changed position. Now, when we are discharging our role as the opposition on behalf of the Australian and ask questions to probe whether or not there are going to be any other changes in relation to taxation policy, we are not receiving clear answers. I want to go through some of the no doubt carefully chosen words that Senator Gallagher has used not just in question time here but leading up to question time as well. When Karl Stefanovic asked the finance minister to say on the record that there would be no change to negative gearing, the finance minister said there was no plan. She refused to say there would be no change; she just said 'no plan'. We all know that could mean 'We don't have a plan today, but we've got a plan tomorrow,' right? They are weasel words. Senator Hume today asked a question about negative gearing. The answer we got was, 'The law is clear.' That's not an answer. The law is clear today, but, just as they've done with respect to the stage 3 tax cuts, they can introduce a bill tomorrow and change the law. We then had my colleague from Queensland, Senator Canavan, ask a question about the mining tax and the diesel fuel tax credit system. In that case, again there was a refusal to rule it out and we were simply told, 'It is not currently part of the tax reform agenda.' Again, the agenda today can change. All options are on the table. And then Senator Gallagher said, 'We have been upfront.' No, that cannot be accepted. If you are upfront—and it's not a question of being upfront with us as senators; it is a question of being upfront with the Australian people before they vote. If you're upfront with them, you tell them before an election what you're going to do and, when you say, 'My word is my bond,' you actually mean it. 15:09 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Through you, Deputy President, I believe that what Senator Scarr is saying to Queenslanders is that, if there is a cost-of-living crisis and they are out there are looking for a solution, and if the government is able to find a better way to deliver cost-of-living relief, that's not something that Senator Scarr would support. What Senator Scarr and others on that side of the chamber are saying is that those Queenslanders who are getting a tax cut shouldn't be getting it and that, for some reason, they expect us to look at this cost-of-living crisis, be told that there's a better way to deliver income tax relief and walk away from an option like that. That's not what this government is doing. That's not what the Prime Minister has done. The Prime Minister has looked at this policy and has found a better way to deliver income tax relief for 13.6 million people. Every single Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut. What we know is that that means that more lower income earners and more middle-income earners will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor's plan. That's why, after all their complaining, whingeing and sulking about this, and in spite of everything they're planning to say in the chamber over the next couple of weeks, what we know is that the coalition will walk in here and vote for this policy. It's because they know it's the right thing to do. Australians know it's the right thing to do. Our government knows that the right thing to do is to look at this policy and at the times that we are in, and to make a decision and be upfront about that decision and make sure that we deliver cost-of-living relief for every Australian taxpayer when it is needed the most. There are Queenslanders who'll be receiving a tax cut. Nurses, teachers and truckies are some of those who are most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut. Ninety per cent of women taxpayers will be getting a bigger tax cut under this plan. These are all the things you won't hear from those opposite. You'll hear semantics and stories about time lines, but we know that, at the end of the day, they will vote for this legislation because it is the right thing to do. The right thing to do—for me and every other Queensland senator, especially out there in rural and regional Queensland—is to provide cost-of-living relief, and that's exactly what we're doing. It's interesting to me that those opposite—who say that they are the natural home of people from rural and regional Queensland, that they represent people from rural and regional Queensland and that only they know what people in the bush would want and need—are ignoring the pleas of people in rural and regional Queensland, because, under our plan, 784,000 people living in rural and regional Queensland will receive a tax cut, and 85 per cent of people living in regional Queensland will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor. The average tax cut of the people in the electorates that those opposite say that they represent is $1,500. In Cairns, what that means is that 79,000 people will receive a tax cut, and 87 per cent of those people will receive a bigger cut under this plan that we're delivering. In Townsville, 87 per cent of people will receive a bigger tax cut; that's 78,000 people in the Herbert electorate. That's an average tax cut for all of those people living in Townsville of $1,500. People in Cairns, Townsville and North Queensland do it tough during summers. The cost-of-living crisis is compounded by the disasters that we have lived through. But those opposite want to say to the people living in North Queensland that they would see a better plan, see a better way, know the right thing to do and walk away from it. In Rockhampton, 71,000 people will receive a bigger tax cut, and 82 per cent of people living in that area will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor. The truth is that, in Gladstone, 66,000 people will receive a tax cut, and 82 per cent of those people will receive a bigger tax cut. An average tax cut for people living in Bundaberg is $1,300. Rural and regional Queenslanders will benefit from this plan, but you won't hear that in the questions from those opposite. Those people opposite are supposed to stand up for the bush and are supposed to stand up for regional Queensland. If they did, they would back in this plan. They would back in a plan to give people more cost-of-living relief when they need it the most. That's what our government is doing. 15:15 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales This is not my first speech. Australia is in a cost-of-living recession right now. Over the past 18 months we've seen real net disposable income per person go down by 8.6 per cent. It's never been so dramatic and it's never been so rapid. If you're an average full-time earner on $95,000 a year, you've seen your real disposable income fall by $8,000 a year or $150 per week. Working Australians are being hit right now by a triple tsunami. They're being hit by higher income tax. Personal income tax collections have increased by 27 per cent since Labor came to office, which means people are taking home less of their pay. They've been hit by higher mortgage repayments because of higher interest rates. There have been 12 interest rate rises now under the Labor government. We've seen mortgage repayments go from $11 billion per quarter to $29 billion per quarter, so more of people's take-home pay is having to go to service the mortgage. Finally, we have high inflation, which the RBA has confirmed is a homegrown problem. Food's up by nine per cent, electricity by 23 per cent and gas by 29 per cent. That means that people, after paying higher taxes and more on their mortgage, are left with less money, which buys fewer groceries and fewer back-to-school supplies, and people are less able to pay their electricity and gas bills. During this debate, and from those opposite today, we've heard Labor crowing about the U-turn they've executed, boasting about a broken promise and daring the coalition to vote against them. They've abandoned the stage 3 tax cuts that they took to the last election, that they voted to put into legislation and that they confirmed on over 100 separate occasions. You'd think from listening to them today that they'd fixed the cost-of-living crisis they've presided over. But based on Labor's own figures, a person on an average annual wage is going to receive an extra $800 a year or $15 a week under Labor's amended tax cuts. So they've lost $8,000 a year or $150 a week and they're only going to get an extra $800 a year or $15 a week. To listen to this government's boasting—they're like arsonists who've set fire to their own house and are now daring us to deny them the garden hose. We're not. We're not going to stand in the way of a tax cut for people already being smashed by Labor's cost-of-living crisis, but we are going to point out that this is woefully insufficient and that Labor is simply seeking to alleviate the symptoms but not treat the disease of high inflation and escalating cost of living, a disease they have made considerably worse. We are going to point out that this is a broken promise and goes to the heart of issues of integrity from a leader who promised us all that his word was his bond. Today we've also been discussing Labor's so-called closing loopholes bill, which they've rushed onto immediately after breaking their promise on the stage 3 tax cuts. This is not so much a closing loopholes bill as a creating burdens bill. Will it address inflation? No, it will make it worse. Will it improve productivity? No, it will make that worse. Will it reduce complexity? No, it will add to complexity. Will it promote flexibility? No, it's going to make that worse. This bill— Senator Sterle e68 Which one? Senator SHARMA 274506 The cost-of-living bill. All it does is add to the bonfire of inflation. I was doing some bedtime reading last night and looking at some of the greatest hits of Paul Keating, the revered leader on the other side of parliament. One of Paul Keating's great insights was that wage rises needed to be accompanied by productivity increases, and he saw that enterprise bargaining and workplace flexibility were the key to delivering these productivity increases. But what we've got in Labor's legislative agenda is only going to wind back enterprise bargaining, reduce workplace flexibility and detract from productivity. What we've seen here is a Labor government of old, losing sight of their proud legacy of economic reform and returning to the state based industrial reallocation systems of the 1970s. 15:20 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I welcome the opportunity to debate industrial relations and the 'closing loopholes' bill with Senator Sharma. As someone who lived through those years before we had enterprise bargaining, and given what we have seen with enterprise bargaining—at the time, enterprise bargaining in the 1990s was a wonderful thing. It gave my industry, truck drivers, the ability to get above minimum wages and to start getting a decent dollar while working with the employers to get productivity. The problem we had, Senator Sharma, just for your own information here, was: that was okay while we had the industrial relations system where, when productivity was gained in the workplace, when employers and employees worked together to improve productivity and get a pay rise for it, the basic award would move accordingly. You know how it works: the unions and employers would argue, they'd ask for 10 per cent or 15 per cent and they'd get one or two, and that was how it worked. Unfortunately, your previous idol, Mr Howard—I think he was your idol!—stopped and said: 'No more will the awards move. They will never move. They're not allowed to move again', and he killed that. I'll tell you what happened: the good employers who actually sat down and negotiated with their employees all of a sudden found themselves, five or six years later, while their pay rates were moving with productivity—it got to a scale where a lot of companies could not be any more productive. There were so many award rate conditions that were traded off for profitability or for pay rises, while the ones who weren't doing enterprise bargaining with their employees were protected by an archaic central wage system where the awards never moved. All it did was, with the greatest of respect, penalise the good employers and employees who sat down to negotiate productivity with each other. It took about 15 or 20 years before it hit, and I was a member of the one union that pulled out of the ACTU—back in 1995, I think it was. We knew back then what enterprise bargaining would eventually do when there were no more productivity gains to negotiate back. I just wanted to clarify that for you. To get back to what we're talking about here—and thank you very much, Deputy President, for allowing me some freedom there—seriously, this has been a real circus the last couple of weeks! When I say 'circus', I'm always mindful, after many years in this chamber—and with many more to come; unless I win lotto, I don't intend on going anywhere! I couldn't come back for the caucus meeting when Prime Minister Albanese announced the new tax plan with the Treasurer, but I listened to it on the radio intently and I was absolutely lifted. I was absolutely rapt to hear the new plan. How can you not be pleased to move from when Mr Morrison's stage 3 was first mooted and voted on many years back—I think it was about 2019, something like that. Since then, we have found ourselves in a situation that we weren't in before. We've seen interest rates go through the roof. I commend the leadership of Mr Albanese, our Prime Minister, and I also commend Mr Chalmers, the Treasurer, and Senator Gallagher, the finance minister, for showing leadership, for adapting, for moving. What may have been okay back then for a certain cohort of workers is not now; it is not the situation now. This is magnificent, when we know that 13.6 million Australians are going to get some form of tax relief. It really excites me that 84 per cent of that 100 per cent are getting more than they were going to get before. I will say this, and it might ruffle a few feathers: all of us in this chamber cannot deny the fact that we are rewarded handsomely for our efforts. We are absolutely paid very well. We cannot whinge. I find it really weird when I talk to a lot of my friends who are on wages and earnings similar to what we're on here—I'm very happy that I'm only going to get half of what I was going to get before. I'd give up the whole lot; it doesn't worry me. I'm so rapt to see that middle Australia is going to get some of it and that lower wage earners are going to get some of it. That is what's right. We've got to get away from this shocking greed that we hear in the conversations around here. I was talking to one of my colleagues the other day. He said he was up somewhere at the Press Club and he heard one of the fourth estate, the media, whinging because it's only $15 a week. 'What's $15 a week going to do for some wage earners?' Let me tell you, as a parent—and I've been through the hard times, growing up in the working class—that's a babyccino and a bickie with Smarties on it down at the shopping centre on shopping day. How good is that for the little one, who might not have had that before this? I've run out of time. An extension? No? Okay. (Time expired) 15:25 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland What we found out in question time today is that the Labor Party—and I'm going to quote here because I wrote it down—has a full book of tax reforms. That's what we found out in question time today. The question was asked by the shadow minister for Finance to the Minister for Finance, and the finance minister said, 'The Labor Party has a full book of tax reforms.' Now, of course, then I got up and asked for the minister to table this full book of tax reforms. There was a lot of blushing on the government's side of the chamber. Of course, this full book of tax reforms was not tabled, because the Labor Party are not telling the truth to the Australian people about their intentions for tax reform in this country. When I say 'tax reform', I mean punishing hardworking Australians. Sadly, we have a Labor Party government that went to the last election promising—making that sacred promise, that sacred pact between a politician and a voter. When politicians say to the voters, 'We will deliver on this if you vote for us,' it's sacrosanct. But, sadly, the Labor Party have broken that bond between the Labor Party and the Australian people. Before the election, Prime Minister Albanese said: … Labor in government will uphold the legislated changes to personal income taxes and maintain the existing regimes for negative gearing and capital gains tax. That quote is so important because the Labor Party have not upheld the legislated changes to personal income taxes. They've actually changed them. When you're dealing with someone and they're prepared to break a promise in relation to personal income taxes, that should give you a pretty fair indication they're going to break their promise in relation to negative gearing and capital gains taxes. This is less about the tax; it's more about the honour of those who go to an election and give a commitment to the Australian people and then breach that honour. We've got a Labor Party in power who will not give a commitment to this chamber, to the Australian people. Questions have been put to them: will you rule out any changes to capital gains taxes? What you get from the Labor Party is nothing. They're not ruling out any changes to negative gearing. You put a question to the Labor Party: will you rule out any changes on capital gains taxes? Nothing from the Labor Party. They're not ruling out changes to capital gains taxes. What we're seeing and what question time today in the Senate has shown us is that the Labor Party clearly has plans to change negative gearing and plans to change capital gains taxes. As the finance minister said, they do have this full book of tax reforms. What we want to know is what else is in this full book of tax reforms. They've already tinkered with personal income taxes. They've changed the stage 3 tax reforms that were put in by the previous coalition government. But what are they actually going to do with capital gains taxes? What are they going to do with negative gearing? What about other taxes? Senator Canavan asked what they're going to do in terms of taxes that particularly impact rural and regional Australia. Once again, no denial from the government that they would be making such changes. What that shows everybody, in the minute that I have left, is that the Labor Party have declared war on aspirational Australia. What we've seen is a Labor Party who have bypassed the Hawke-Keating government and bypassed even the Whitlam government. They've gone back and said, 'We are going to declare a war on aspirational Australia,' because that is what the Labor Party have done since they've come to power. We see the power they're giving to union barons. We see the power that they're giving to the union thugs to enter workplaces. This is a government that exists solely for the political benefit of the union movement and the Labor Party. They do not exist to help modern Australia. They do not exist to help those who are suffering under a cost-of-living crisis—a cost-of-living crisis that this government did not talk about last year at all. It was only over the Christmas break that they started— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator McGrath. I appreciate those comments. We've reached the appointed hour. Senator McGrath 217241 I am devastated that I've run out of time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We're all devastated. I put the question that Senator Scarr's motion be agreed to. Question agreed to. BILLS 54 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 54

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

The Senate divided. [15:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 31 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. 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. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:39]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. 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. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

36 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. 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. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. McKim, N. J. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. McKim, N. J. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The President—Senator Lines)

5 AYES Babet, R. Lambie, J. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. 44 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [16:09]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. 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. Shoebridge, D. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [16:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. 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. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. 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. 26 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:18]
(The President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. 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. 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 negatived.

Third Reading 107 16:20 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

The Senate divided. [16:21]
(The President—Senator Lines)

32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. 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. 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 Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

16:24 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, that concludes consideration of the bill. I would like to thank you for your attention and your cooperation. An incident having occurred in the gallery— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order in the gallery! The Senate will now return to the routine of business. An incident having occurred in the gallery— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm going to call the chamber and the gallery to order. Thank you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Colbeck? Senator Colbeck 00AOL On a point of order to the chair, and the President might like to consider this: when a group of farmers expressed a view and applauded in the chamber earlier in the week, they were threatened with removal. They were threatened with removal. My simple point is, quite frankly, if there's going to be applause from the gallery and stuff like that, that's fine, but I know what the standing orders say. But there should be equal treatment of people within the chamber. So, when a farmer comes here and they're threatened with removal from the chamber for applauding from the gallery, I don't see why it's different to somebody from a trade union who comes here and applauds something from the gallery. I do note that you called them to order, but they weren't threatened with removal from the gallery. I just would ask—a simple request—for equal treatment for people in equal circumstances. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Colbeck, for your comments. What I would say to you is that, in relation to the gallery the other day, I called them to order three times, and it was on the third occasion that I threatened to have them removed. With the current gallery, I called them to order twice, and on the second occasion they came to order. I would like to think that I am very fair and impartial at all times. Certainly, in the gallery the other day, on the third occasion, I threatened to have them removed because as President of this place I should not have to do it three times, whether it's in the chamber or in the gallery. So I thank you for your comments. COMMITTEES 108 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 108 Report 108 16:27 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report: report 1 of2024. Community Affairs References Committee 108 Report 108 16:27 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the review of legislative instruments made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, together with accompanying documents, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This review examines six legislative instruments made by the Labor government under Australia's income management system and was the result of a Greens amendment to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill in 2023. That bill established the Labor government's enhanced income management regime and effectively expanded the destructive and punitive system of compulsory income management. For nearly two decades, since the introduction of the BasicsCard, we have heard evidence from First Nations people, parliamentary inquiries, the Australian Human Rights Commission, researchers and community organisations about the failure of compulsory income management as a tool for alleviating poverty, addiction and other social issues, and we've heard time and time again how it disproportionately impacts First Nations people and violates human rights. While we were unsuccessful in our attempts to block that legislation, the Greens were able to secure an amendment requiring a Senate committee review of any legislative instruments made on income management. One of the key concerns we had and still have about this legislation is that it expands the minister's powers in a dangerous way, and this review process that we have added adds a basic level of scrutiny and accountability to that process. The report that I am speaking to today is the first such review by the committee since the passage of the income management reform bill. I want to begin now by thanking the community affairs secretariat for their work on this inquiry; my fellow committee members; and all the participants, who gave compelling and important evidence. This inquiry exposed the complete inadequacy and unsuitability of the legislative instruments underpinning Labor's Enhanced Income Management regime. An overwhelming number of inquiry participants expressed their concern about the extent and nature of the consultation on these instruments and, when asked during the hearing if the government had engaged in a formal consultation process on the instruments with any of the diverse range of witnesses, many, including the Queensland Indigenous Family Violence Legal Service, Economic Justice Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service and the Accountable Income Management Network, they said, no, they had not been consulted. Further, many participants raised concerns about the level and type of consultation that had been undertaken with First Nations communities. A representative from the Queensland Indigenous Family Legal Service highlighted how the lack of consultation does not align with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap priorities, and participants also raised issues about the lack of public information about who and what kind of consultation that had been undertaken. This firsthand evidence of the lack of consultation completely contradicts the claims in the government's explanatory material for these instruments, which stated that 'extensive' consultation had been undertaken. And this wasn't the only issue raised by witnesses about the explanatory material provided with the instruments. Many emphasised how the explanatory materials lacked adequate information for parliament and the public to properly scrutinise their impact. Even more alarmingly, witnesses highlighted how the impact analysis mentioned in each explanatory statement concerned the cashless debit card rather than Enhanced Income Management. It was also pointed out that, despite this analysis being outdated, this wasn't mentioned in the explanatory material at all. For the parliament to properly scrutinise legislative instruments, we rely on explanatory materials. Tabling instruments that lack adequate and relevant information is lazy, deceptive and potentially harmful. And, while there were more issues raised by inquiry participants, another significant flaw in the instruments was the failure to address years of documented human rights concerns raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It's clear that, in developing these legislative instruments, the Labor government had no regard for transparency, human rights or working in partnership with First Nations communities. We're extremely disappointed that the Senate voted down the Greens motion to disallow three of these instruments last year. However, we urge the Senate to support our upcoming motion to disallow the declared child protection state determination, the recognised state or territory determination and the specified income management instrument in the coming weeks. So, in response to the evidence presented before the committee, the report makes one clear recommendation: that, for any future income management legislative instruments, the Australian government give consideration to undertaking genuine consultation, to provide adequate and relevant explanatory material to parliament to enable appropriate scrutiny and to provide a detailed report on the consultation process and outcomes regarding the proposed determinations. The Greens support this recommendation, and I want to emphasise that implementing this recommendation is an important measure to improve the overall transparency of the Enhanced Income Management scheme. However, the Greens are of the firm view that all forms of compulsory income management should be abolished. They do not work, and we do not believe that this recommendation of disallowing these instruments goes far enough. As the Australian Council of Social Services said during the inquiry hearing: … any amount of amendment to these instruments would fail to address the core problem of continuing mandatory income management, which now mostly affects people in the Northern Territory. While this inquiry only examined six legislative instruments in Australia's income management system, it reinforced a long history of evidence showing compulsory income management schemes are ineffective and incompatible with human rights. For example, the Central Land Council wrote in their submission: … while Indigenous poverty rates are decreasing (albeit to a small degree) across most parts of the country, in remote NT and the West Kimberly, they are escalating—significantly. In these regions, poverty rates are more than 50 per cent, and in some cases, much higher. This level of poverty is unparalleled elsewhere in Australia and evidence of serious policy failure—and income management is a wholly inadequate policy to address it. The Central Land Council go on to suggest: Genuine efforts to address the poverty crisis in remote NT will focus on policy measures that are preventative, strengths-based and systemic—designed with Aboriginal people and their representative organisations, consistent with the commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. Dr Elizabeth Moore, the president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said: … we have advocated for the abolition of welfare quarantining because schemes like this are inherently flawed in their logic and the research indicates they don't actually reduce the purchasing of prohibited items. They have a range of impacts, some of which are negative rather than positive. In fact, the research shows that some of the earlier schemes did not reduce the impact of children not going to school. These schemes failed to support people with concurrent addiction and housing and employment issues, and they failed to support them in bringing around behavioural change; we've heard this from previous speakers. Positive reinforcing strategies and the fulfilment of mental, emotional and social needs have been shown to be much more effective. There is also concern around stigma, discrimination and disempowerment. They may in fact exacerbate grievance, unrest and retraumatisation, especially of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The evidence is clear: compulsory income management does not work. Rather it is a punitive and harmful regime that disproportionately targets First Nations peoples. As noted, this inquiry builds upon years of evidence pointing to the failures of compulsory income management. It also reinforces the ongoing calls from First Nations organisations for preventive measures and services that genuinely support people living in poverty and who potentially face addiction issues—services that are First Nations led and co-designed. Before the 2022 election, the Australian Labor Party made a clear commitment to end all forms of compulsory income management. Disappointingly, the Labor government broke this promise when they chose to maintain the BasicsCard and establish the enhanced income management regime. Labor, it is time that you honour your commitment and listen to the voices of First Nations communities, social service organisations and those impacted by these punitive policies. It is time to end all forms of compulsory income management. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 110 DOCUMENTS Consideration 110 COMMITTEES 110 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 110 Report 110 16:41 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the final report of the committee entitled The worsening rental crisis in Australia. What I'll seek to do here is outline for the Senate the realities of the cost-of-living crisis in regional Western Australia and highlight some of the double standards that are at work, particularly those double standards practised by the WA and federal Labor Party. Last weekend I had the privilege of visiting the beautiful community of Margaret River in the south-west of WA. Visitors to the town want to live there, and locals who have called it home find it to be a dream. But, for so many, it will only ever be a dream to call Margaret River home. Indeed, for many, calling their beloved town home has become a nightmare. The rental crisis is hitting regional WA hard. Last week alone, there were only three rental properties available in the entirety of Margaret River. Similar to other regional centres across the state, rents are increasing seriously and doubling down on the impact of the housing and living crisis. It is already expensive enough to try to buy basics like fresh food and fuel in rural and remote towns, but now we are seeing, for instance, in Busselton, a reality where so much of the community is being thrown over the 30 per cent rental stress line where we are now seeing rents of over $700 a week. How are you meant to make that work? On top of all of this, we're seeing the WA state government fail to fund vital community groups like Just Home in Margaret River. Just Home is a fantastic organisation that does so much to support those struggling with the housing crisis and housing insecurity in Margaret River, yet they are months away from having to shut their doors, because the WA government refuses to fund them to continue to do vital work. In Perth, we are seeing a record-long stretch of rent increases and record high increases in weekly rent. One tenant reached out to me to share the reality that they have been hit with a $250 a week rent increase. For that person, their fuel and food money has gone straight into the back pocket of their landlord. In WA, the state government has truly demonstrated an eel-like level of spinelessness. WA currently has some of the worst rental laws in the country. We still allow no-fault evictions in Western Australia, with the result that people are simply tossed out onto the street. For the disability community the situation is even more dire. Less than five per cent of housing stock in Western Australia is suitable for a disabled person, yet the WA Labor government will not commit to universal access housing standards. This is an absolute outrage and locks disabled people out of accessible housing for another generation. I recently heard from a WA couple who are disability pensioners facing a $100 a week rent rise. They are currently compromising their medical treatment to pay for their rent even though the property they are living in is outdated, lacks basic maintenance and is inaccessible for their disabilities. This situation is not rare. In fact, two-thirds of WA renters report that they are too scared to ask for the repairs or maintenance they need, in case they are evicted. This means they are living with leaks, dampness, mould or houses that are more like pressure cookers in the summer, because they are scared to ask for the repairs that are needed. On the other side of the coin, I hear from constituents who are disabled people who do have a place to call home that is somewhere they can make work, and yet they have been issued with a no-fault eviction notice, and so they are out and don't know where to go next. This is unacceptable. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 16:48 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I also rise to take note of the Community Affairs References Committee's final report titled The worsening rental crisis in Australia. I'd like to begin by thanking all the witnesses who attended the in-person hearings and the thousands who sent written submissions for this inquiry. Australia is facing a cost-of-living polycrisis under this Labor government. The price of groceries and fuel, along with interest rates and rents, have all skyrocketed under the Albanese Labor government. As a result, the dream of homeownership is slipping away for many young Australians as they're firmly placed into the rental trap. This creates a toxic cycle. More renters means more pressure on the rental market, which means higher rents. I believe you must fix the homeownership crisis if you are to fix the rental crisis. Both require a substantive increase in supply. We heard during the public hearings the overwhelming view that supply was the issue. In Brisbane, Ms Caniglia from Q Shelter explained exactly how the housing market works when she said: Housing is a system, and at the moment we don't have enough supply to meet demand. That causes not only an incredible set of repercussions for households seeking to rent in the private market but also these other repercussions which make it difficult to deliver human services. This sentiment was repeated at the Canberra hearings by REIA, when they put on the public record: It is REIA's strong view that it is a shortage of housing supply that is causing this catastrophic situation for renters. But you don't need an economics degree to understand that, if you have fewer houses than there are people, the cost of housing will go up. Another thing this report did was to comprehensively rule out rent freezes and caps as a solution to this crisis. They simply do not work and often come with unintended consequences. In their joint submission, Treasury and the Department of Social Services explored academic literature that investigates the impacts and effects of rent caps and freezes in international jurisdictions such as New York and Berlin. Treasury concluded that, while controls on rental prices may deliver benefits to existing tenants through lower rental prices, achieving the policy objectives of price intervention is difficult, as it limits labour market mobility, is inequitable, imposes negative externalities, negatively affects the quality of rental stock, imposes costs on future renters, and leads to a reduction in rental supply and an increase in rental costs in the long term. What was also gleaned from this inquiry was that all Australian governments must be bold in their desire to fix these crises. Stamp duty reform must be at the top of the agenda for state and territory governments. As the Grattan Institute said during the Melbourne hearing, housing would also be better allocated if more state and territory governments swapped stamp duty for a broad-based land tax. Stamp duties are amongst the most inefficient taxes available to the states and territories. They discourage people from moving to housing that better suits their needs, and sometimes they discourage people from moving to better jobs. My home state of New South Wales tried this, but, sadly, Labor once again decided to stymie reform what is Australia's worst tax. This is a critical tax reform. We could lower housing prices by possibly four per cent if states and territories reformed stamp duty. What we also discovered is that the rent trap is preventing renters from saving enough for a deposit, further killing off the dream of homeownership for millions of young Australians. That is why the coalition believes that, if we are to revitalise the culture of homeownership, Australians who are first-home buyers should have the ability to access super to purchase their own home. It is, after all, their own money. It is our view in this report that, to fix the rental crisis, the government must address the homeownership crisis that is trapping millions of young Australians in the rental market. We can achieve this by working urgently with state and territory governments to increase the supply of housing, including with stamp duty reform. We should be bold and find alternative ways in which first-home buyers can enter the property market, such as the use of their super as a deposit and then offset of super for their mortgage. We must strongly oppose policies that seek to destroy property rights or place them in the hands of institutions or to intervene in the market through measures such as rental caps or freezes. These actions will only make matters worse. Australia is a homeowning democracy, and, by prioritising the opportunity for homeownership, a key measure will develop in solving the current rental crisis. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 111 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 111 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Consideration 111 COMMITTEES 112 COMMITTEES Australia's Disaster Resilience Select Committee, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Community Affairs References Committee, Cost of Living Select Committee, Economics Legislation Committee, Economics References Committee, Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Education and Employment References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Perth Mint and Commonwealth Regulatory Compliance Select Committee, National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Supermarket Prices Select Committee 112 Membership 112 16:53 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 16:53 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Australia's Disaster Resilience — Select Committee — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Cost of Living — Select Committee — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Economics Legislation and References Committees — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Implementation of the National Redress Scheme — Joint Standing Committee — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Perth Mint — Select Committee — Participating member: Senator Ghosh National Anti-Corruption Commission — Joint Statutory Committee — Discharged—Senator White Appointed—Senator Grogan Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Supermarket Prices — Select Committee — Participating member: Senator Ghosh Question agreed to. BILLS 113 BILLS Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023, Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023, COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023, Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 113

Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023

COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023

First Reading 113 16:54 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 113 16:55 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES BILL 2023 The Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 will make a range of important amendments to update, clarify and improve the intended operation of legislation administered by the Attorney- General. The Bill will enhance the capacity of the Australian court system to deal with corporate criminal offences and enable a more efficient jury preparation process in the Federal Court of Australia. The Bill will also deliver on the Government's election commitment to abolish the Native Title Respondents Scheme. The Bill will: clarify and improve the operation of the Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants Program; provide greater accessibility for marrying couples; and remove the administrative burden on the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in relation to the arbitration framework in family law matters. Federal Court criminal jurisdiction The Bill will confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to hear and determine a range of indictable corporate criminal offences within the responsibility of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. This is an important step in the development of the Federal Court's criminal jurisdiction, which was last significantly expanded in 2009 when jurisdiction was conferred in relation to indictable cartel offences. The Federal Court has considerable expertise in civil, commercial and corporate matters, and is well-positioned to deal with this expanded criminal jurisdiction. This jurisdiction will operate concurrently with the existing jurisdiction of State and Territory courts. This will enhance the overall capacity of Australia's court system and support the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to more efficiently prosecute corporate criminal conduct. In the interests of effective and efficient administration of justice, the Bill will also provide for proceedings in relation to corporate crime offences to be transferred to the most appropriate court, having regard to the interests of justice. Neither the concurrent conferral of jurisdiction, nor the transfer provision, will interfere with the independence of State and Territory courts or the powers of Supreme Court Chief Justices to manage and allocate cases within their jurisdiction. To support the efficient resolution of criminal proceedings, the Bill will confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to hear and determine summary offences which arise from substantially the same facts as primary indictable offences being heard in the Court. This will avoid the possibility of prosecutors having to commence new proceedings in a State or Territory court in relation to the related summary offence. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to Schedule 1 of this Bill, as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002 and the National Credit Law Agreement 2009. Federal Court juries The Bill seeks to improve the efficiency of jury preparation processes by allowing State and Territory jury officials to provide a jury panel to the Federal Court. This will be in addition to the existing powers of the Sheriff of the Federal Court to prepare a jury panel. To respect the independence of States and Territories, the consent of the relevant State or Territory will be required before the Sheriff can request a State or Territory jury official to provide a jury panel. Repeal section 213A of the Native Title Act 1993 Section 213A of the Native Title Act 1993 will be repealed to give full effect to the Government's election commitment to abolish the Native Title Respondents Scheme. Abolition of the Native Title Respondents Scheme was a commitment taken to the 2022 election and will save $6.4 million over 4 years from 2022-23. Many significant questions of native title law have now been settled and the Government considers that many current native title respondents, which are generally commercially viable or sound entities, would have the capacity to deal with native title matters as part of their ordinary business costs. Amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 The Bill will make minor amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 to clarify and improve the operation of the Marriage Celebrants Program and provide greater accessibility for marrying couples. The amendments will improve accessibility by permanently allowing the option of virtual witnessing for Notices of Intended Marriage. Marrying couples, particularly those in rural and regional areas, will greatly benefit from this change. To ensure the foundational requirement of consent is safeguarded, a complementary amendment requires authorised celebrants to meet independently and in person with each party to a marriage before they solemnise the marriage. The reasons for transferring a Notice of Intended Marriage have also been extended to allow for circumstances where the marrying couple wants to change their celebrant. The amendments will clarify that an authorised celebrant can only be registered in one subdivision at any time, and that marriage must be solemnised in the physical presence of an authorised celebrant. The identity requirements to be provided to an authorised celebrant will be clarified by providing that a statutory declaration can be used to provide identity details if it is impracticable to obtain an official record of birth and the person does not have a current passport. The Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants Program will be improved by extending the timeframe for assessing applications to allow applicants the best opportunity to complete their applications and inserting a power to refund application fees in the Marriage Act where an applicant does not have the mandatory qualification. Deputy registrars will be able to be appointed to assist the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants to, among other things, process the large volume of applications to become a marriage celebrant. Arbitration The Bill makes technical amendments to the arbitration framework in the Family Law Act 1975. The amendments will allow parties and arbitrators to make applications for review of an arbitral award or to determine a question of law to both Divisions of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. These amendments remove the administrative burden on the Federal Circuit and Family Court arising from the current need to transfer these applications from Division 2 to Division 1 for determination. Conclusion This Bill will deliver a range of amendments to legislation administered by the Attorney-General, to provide lasting benefits to Australia's legal system. And I commend the Bill to the House. AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL AMENDMENT (REVIEW RESPONSE) BILL 2023 Australia accounts for only 0.3 per cent of the world's population, but we do 3 per cent of global research. We make an outsized contribution to global knowledge—about 10 times what you'd expect looking at our population alone. Pound for pound we're one of the most important contributors to global knowledge and innovation. Australian research has literally changed the world. And a key part of that is the work done by the Australian Research Council. The ARC plays a unique role in this country. It supports basic and applied research across all disciplines except medical research. No other agency does this. And it does this to the tune of more than $895 million in research grants this financial year. That funding supports more than 5,900 new and ongoing grants. The ARC doesn't just fund research. It acts as an important safeguard on research integrity. It also provides advice and support to the Australian Government on research matters. And it has a proven track record in nurturing and producing the kind of research and results that keep Australia at the cutting edge of innovation. And that has an economic benefit too. According to work done by ACIL Allen, every dollar of National Competitive Grants Program funding administered by the ARC generates more than three dollars of economic output. That's a return on investment you don't see in many places. And that return not only supports our economy. It also enhances our reputation internationally as thinkers and doers. And leaders in research. Over the last 22 years the ARC has supported the work of brilliant Australians who have repaid that government investment with some extraordinary achievements. Achievements like bringing the internet to Australia. Getting quantum computing off the ground. Driving the uptake of solar panels on rooftops here and overseas. And helping the world respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. But in those 22 years, neither the ARC nor the legislation that underpins it had been comprehensively reviewed. And that legislation hasn't kept up with the times. In 2001, when the ARC was established the hottest new consumer technology was the Apple iPod. Facebook and YouTube didn't exist. The mapping of the human genome was still in the "working draft"phase. For most people connection to the world wide web started with unplugging your landline and waiting for that weird cacophony of connection sounds. And we only had four Star Wars movies. That's how long it's been. That's how much we've changed. That's two decades spent without lifting the hood on the ARC legislation to see what's working and what we might do better. And what we need to do to protect the independence of our research sector. The fact is in recent times the ARC has been bedevilled by political interference and Ministerial delays. At least four Ministers have interfered on at least six occasions during the former Government to upend the independent peer review process. Interference and delays make it harder for universities to recruit and retain staff, and it damages our international reputation. That's not good for our universities, and it's not good for business either who want to work with our universities. And that's why last year the Minister for Education appointed Professor Margaret Sheil AO, Professor Susan Dodds and Professor Mark Hutchinson to conduct the first comprehensive review of the ARC Act. Their terms of reference were broad. The Minister for Education wanted the review team to have a really close look at this and tell us what needs to be done to make the ARC fit for today's research environment and prepare it for tomorrow's. To consult widely. To speak to people across the research ecosystem. Researchers. University and other higher education providers. Traditional knowledge owners. Research organisations here and overseas. Industry groups. Peak Bodies. And Government. This they did and the Minister for Education sincerely thanks them for that work. In April the Minister for Education received the review team's report. They concluded that we need to strengthen the ARC's governance arrangements. To bolster its independence. To get the politics out of it. To end the days of Ministers vetoing things they didn't like the title of. Professor Sheil and the review team made 10 recommendations and in August the Minister for Education announced that the Government agreed or agreed in principle to all of them. The Minister for Education has already requested the ARC to commission work to implement three of them. They are: 1. that we help universities attract and retain talented academics through meaningful Fellowships and promoting academic careers in research; 2. that we advance the support for Indigenous Australian academics through better consultation and additional Fellowships; 3. that we encourage more consultation between the ARC and stakeholders in the academic and research community That work is already underway. A fourth recommendation concerning the evaluation of excellence, impact and research capacity within Australian universities has been considered as part of the Australian Universities Accord. The remaining six recommendations require legislative amendments and they are addressed in this bill which amends the ARC Act. The bill amends the objects of the Act so that they clearly define the important role and place of the ARC in supporting Australia's research community. The bill also establishes an ARC Board as the accountable authority of the ARC. This was recommended by the Review team to strengthen the independence and integrity of the ARC. The Board will be appointed by the Minister and the bill includes eligibility requirements to ensure that members are appropriately qualified, with the majority of members to have substantial experience or expertise in one or more fields of research, or in the management of research. The Board will also include a First Nations person, and a regional, rural and remote representative, and be supported by an ongoing ARC Advisory Committee with expertise across research, industry and governance. The Board will appoint the ARC's Chief Executive Officer, and approve the appointment of members to Board committees, including the College of Experts. Importantly, the Board will approve research grants under the National Competitive Grants Program. This is one of the critical changes recommended by the Review. Under the existing Act, these decisions are made by the Minister. Every decision. On thousands of grants. Over time this has allowed for political interference to seep into what should be an independent, peer reviewed process aimed at expanding our nation's knowledge base. The establishment of the Board as the approving body will get the politics out of this. It re-establishes peer review as the driving principle in grant approvals. Peer review is the accepted world standard for achieving quality in research grant outcomes. International collaboration and credibility also rely on having access to resources on a merit basis. The reforms in this bill will send a strong signal that the Government supports research selection processes that are based on research excellence and sound due diligence. Some important powers are retained by the Minister in this bill. The Minister will be responsible for setting the funding rules to be followed by the Board in making grant decisions. These funding rules will be a disallowable legislative instrument. This will safeguard against future Ministers attempting to use the ARC as a political plaything without the oversight of the Parliament. The Minister will also retain powers to approve funding for nationally significant investments. This is not about individual research grants, but investing in projects which can drive research, infrastructure, training and collaboration. The machinery and the engine rooms of research. Projects like the ARC Centres for Excellence, Industrial Transformation Training Centres, and Industrial Transformation Research Hubs. Other designated research programs may be specified by the Minister through a disallowable legislative instrument. The Minister will also have the power to direct the Board not to approve a grant, or to terminate funding for a grant and where appropriate require repayment, based on national security grounds. When that happens, the Minister must notify the Parliament and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The ARC's annual report will specify the number of times these powers have been exercised. Finally, the bill replaces the Special Appropriation arrangements for ARC's administered funding with Annual Appropriation arrangements, providing funding visibility for the sector. The Minister for Education again thanks Professors Sheil, Hutchinson and Dodds for the mountain of work they did in conducting this review, and thanks Dr John Byron and Dr Natalie Jones-Jayasinghe for their stellar work in supporting them. Their collective commitment to this task, their wisdom and deep expertise have been invaluable. The Minister for Education also thanks the ARC CEO Judi Zielke and her team for the important work that they have done and the work that they are doing now with the Department of Education to implement the Review's recommendations. As a nation we are rightly proud of our reputation in research and the measures in this bill will help support the discoveries and innovations of the future. They will modernise the ARC, strengthen it and build more trust in it so it can continue to spur innovation and catalyse productivity in the years ahead. The bill is commended to the Senate. COAG LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2023 Introduction & Context—Federalism to COAG Australia Federated for a better future for our people. This Bill backs the Federation and ensures we are best placed to meet our shared challenges. In 1900, Australians "agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth". The arguments for cooperation were as strong in 1900 as they are today. As The Commonwealth League in Adelaide argued in 1898: "To give better opportunities to our children"; "To promote the prosperity of Australia"; and "To develop resources, trade and manufactures". Western Australia was the last state to agree. They were urged to "Complete the union by voting YES". And they did. Ever since, this Parliament has acted to ensure the Commonwealth, states and territories collaborate and learn from each other. Close and ongoing cooperation between governments is also critical to driving policy reform nationally. The federal system is the backbone to critical services such as education. Healthcare. Environmental protection. All which require strong collaboration between the Commonwealth and states and territories. Mechanisms for intergovernmental co-operation and interaction have changed over the years. Prior to Federation, the 1890 Australasian Federal Conference and subsequent Australasian Federal Conventions hosted the premiers of Australian colonies. The 1891 Federal Convention spent 5 weeks discussing and writing a draft constitution. This became the basis for the constitution we have today. Subsequent conventions would continue to debate changes over nine years. Significant topics of contention were tariffs and defence. Tariffs provided the colonial governments with much revenue but they restricted trade and movement between the colonies. Following Federation, all duties on intra-Australian trade were abolished and a common external tariff was imposed. Our domestic economy is forever stronger for the removal of intra-Australian duties. Prior to Federation, the colonies were ill-equipped to defend themselves. Each colony had its own militia consisting of a small permanent force and volunteers. It was clear that this created major vulnerabilities to threats from other nations with larger populations and military forces. The colonies knew a united defence force could better protect Australia. They called for naval and military forces to be constitutionally enshrined. An air force was a few years off. On 1 January 1901 and every day since, the six colonies of Australia, and the people they serve, have benefited from Federation. In the years following, there were sporadic Premiers' Conferences. The first being in November 1901. It was clear these meetings were not suitable for detailed policy discussions. It was during the First World War that the Conference played a pivotal role. Delivering agreement on substantially uniform financial and employment support for returned soldiers. Premiers' Conferences were then largely replaced by meetings between Commonwealth and state ministers after 1929. Then, as Curtin and Chifley prepared to "win the peace", the first Commonwealth State Housing Agreement was delivered in 1945. This provided funding for the construction of new dwellings and formed the basis of our modern social housing system. These specialist meetings evolved again into ministerial councils and forums. Then the 1970s gave Australia the idea of 'New Federalism'. Passionately argued by then Opposition Leader E.G. Whitlam in the 1971 Australian Quarterly. Malcolm Fraser also adopted his own version of "New Federalism". Come 1990, Bob Hawke instigated a number of Special Premiers Conferences to help deliver his government's microeconomic reforms. These conferences resulted in COAG, the structure that existed until the pandemic. The formation of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in 1992 was described by Prime Minister Keating as: "quite an historic event" … "it will be a useful forum for debating matters of national moment". He continued this will ensure: "that Premiers in all states at the one time are all part of the same conversation and know which way the system is moving" COAG itself had a number of noteworthy achievements: National Competition Policy; Agreement to the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and The launch of the action plan to reduce violence against women and their children. COAG also responded rapidly to significant global events to determine a national approach. In 2005, COAG reconsidered counterterrorism arrangements following transport bombings in London. In 2009, COAG drove consideration of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan in response to the global financial crisis. Introduction & Context—Creation o f National Cabinet National Cabinet was established on 13 March 2020. Initially in response to the need for enhanced collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states on the COVID-19 pandemic. National Cabinet's focus has since shifted to progress shared reform and priorities for the nation. Notable achievements of National Cabinet during this time include: Agreement to Strengthening Medicare measures; Commitment to a NDIS Sustainability Framework; The Better Planning for Stronger Growth reform package, which combined measures across Housing, Infrastructure and Immigration; and The Energy Price Relief Plan. Housing has also been a particular focus for National Cabinet. Delivering agreement in August 2023 to an ambitious new national target to build 1.2 million new well-located homes over five years from 1 July 2024. This is supported by: $3 billion for performance based funding for the New Homes Bonus; The $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator payment; and $500 million of competitive funding through the Housing Support Program. National Cabinet must continue to meet the expectations of the Australia people. To work for Australia. To address matters quickly, based on advice from experts, with leaders outlining the priorities and parameters for their governments to implement. All of us must ensure Australia's federal structure continues to deliver intelligent cooperation on issues of strategic national significance. Overview o f Bill The COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 seeks to prepare our Federation for the future. First, the Bill reflects the cessation of COAG. The Bill will update the COAG Reform Fund Act 2008, renaming the fund as the Federation Reform Fund. The renaming of the COAG Reform Fund will be reflected in other legislation where it occurs. Second, the Bill will replace references to 'COAG' with 'First Ministers' Council' where it occurs in legislation. Inserting a definition which ensures that the decisions of First Ministers will stand no matter the name of the forum. The First Ministers' Council will mean 'a body (however described) that consists only of, or that includes, the following: The Prime Minister; The Premiers of each State; and The Chief Ministers of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory'. Third, to reflect the establishment of a new architecture for federal-state relations, the Bill seeks to update language around ministerial councils and forums. Specifically, where relevant acts include the term 'Ministerial Council', the Bill will change the definition to mean a 'body (however described)' that consists of: The Minister of the Commonwealth; and The Minister of each State and Territory, who is responsible, or principally responsible, for matters relating to a particular portfolio issue, such as Health, Education or Transport. For example, references to the 'Standing Council on Health' in the National Health Reform Act2011 would be substituted with 'Ministerial Council'. Conclusion The Australian Federation has delivered significant benefit to the Australian people. It is central to our work for Australia and to delivering policy that improves the lives of all Australians. Following the cessation of COAG, National Cabinet has been at the forefront of leading these reforms. Therefore, the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 is an important step to update outdated references. This Bill builds on the history of coordination and cooperation which began prior to Federation. I thank Commonwealth ministers for agreeing to these changes. I note that following this Bill's passage, states and territories will look to adopt necessary measures through their own legislation. 30 years ago Prime Minister Keating spoke of the "great promise" of continued and consistent intergovernmental relations. This Bill helps to ensure we keep that promise. CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (INCORPORATION OF PROPOSALS) BILL (NO. 2) 2023 The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate the measures contained in four Customs Tariff Proposals that were moved in the 2023 Winter and Spring parliamentary sittings. The measures relate to the support of space activities, the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, and extending existing measures that were put in place following the invasion of Ukraine. The first measure is the expansion in the scope of concessional item 9 of Schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to cover the types of goods specified in the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the European Space Agency for a Co-operative Space Vehicle Tracking Program. The amendment inserts a new paragraph into concessional item 9 to cover goods covered by this Agreement. This will enable the duty-free entry of equipment, materials, supplies and other property that are for the European Space Agency and are for use in Agreed Activities under the agreement and imported by persons employed or engaged by the European Space Agency. This will also enable the duty-free entry of personal and household goods imported by those persons. The European Space Agency is currently undertaking an expansion of their facility in Western Australia to include a new 35 meter diameter deep space antenna for communicating with various space science missions and a Biomass Calibration Transponder to support the 2024 Biomass mission which aims to provide critical information about forests globally and improve our understanding of the role forests play in the carbon cycle. Goods for this project and future projects will be eligible for a 'Free' rate of customs duty where they are imported on or after 1 December 2022. The second measure extends the duration of the temporary duty reduction for Ukrainian goods for a further twelve months. The amendment replaces paragraph (1)(b) of section 18B of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to extend the end date for the measure. As a demonstration of Australia's ongoing support for the people of Ukraine who have borne a terrible cost from Russia's invasion, the 'Free' rate of customs duty will continue to apply to goods, other than alcohol, tobacco, petroleum and fuel products, that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine, to 3 July 2024. The third measure in this Bill enables certain goods to be imported with a 'Free' rate of customs duty if they are for use in connection with an international sporting event. The amendment inserts new Schedule 4 item 59 into the Customs Tariff Act 1995, which enables the application of concessional treatment where goods are imported from 1 January 2022 and are prescribed by by-law for a specified international sporting event. The first event prescribed was the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. Co-hosting the FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 was a momentous occasion for Australian sport, and getting to share in the Matildas' inspirational journey has changed the game for women's sport in this country forever. However, the concessional item will have broad application for international sporting events that Australia may host in the future. The final measure is the extension of the temporary additional duty for Russian and Belarusian goods for a further twenty four months. The amendment for this measure replaces the end date in paragraph (5)(b) of section 18A of the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The additional duty rate of 35 per cent will, therefore, continue to apply to goods that are the produce or manufacture of Russia or Belarus in addition to the general rate of customs duty that applies to these goods. The additional duty applies to goods that are entered for home consumption between 25 April 2022 and 24 October 2025, other than those that are eligible for a schedule 4 concessional item or left for direct shipment to Australia from a place of manufacture or warehouse prior to 25 April 2022. The measure is a direct response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, supported by Belarus. As Russia continues to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and undermine the rules-based international order, this measure is necessary for Australia's essential security interests. Australia is committed to upholding these principles, which are essential for Australia's international, regional and domestic stability and security. Australia joins like-minded members of the international community in applying this economic measure, which is a necessary part of the response to Russia's and Belarus' flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations. NATIONAL REDRESS SCHEME FOR INSTITUTIONAL CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AMENDMENT BILL 2023 This Bill will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (the Scheme). The amendments form part of the Government's final response to recommendations from the Second Year Review of the National Redress Scheme (the Review) undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. The Scheme was established on 1 July 2018 in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It is just over half way through its legislated ten years of operation and will be reviewed again at the eight year mark, on 1 July 2026. The implementation of the Scheme was an acknowledgement by the Australian Government and state and territory governments that sexual abuse suffered by children in institutional settings was wrong, a betrayal of trust, and should never have happened. The Scheme recognises the suffering survivors have experienced and the often life-long impact the abuse has had on their lives. The Scheme accepts that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for this abuse. The Scheme is an important step towards healing and provides access to three components of redress as a tangible means of recognising the wrongs survivors have suffered. These are a monetary payment, access to counselling and psychological services and a direct personal response from the institutions responsible, where a survivor wants that to occur. In preparing this second reading speech, I revisited my remarks on the primary legislation to establish the Scheme. In 2018, I acknowledged the powerful advocates who called for governments to do something to address the wrongs of the past and without whom we would not have those important pieces of legislation. Today, I again acknowledge their bravery in telling their stories to make sure that the abuse they experienced never happens again. I also wish to acknowledge National Survivors Day, which occurred this week, the 5th Anniversary of the National Apology and that it is just over 11 years since the Royal Commission was announced by the then Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard AC. As at 10 November 2023, 496 non-government institutions are participating in the Scheme. This means the Scheme now covers approximately 69,000 sites across Australia. In addition, over 13,400 payments totalling approximately $1.2 billion have been paid to survivors to date. The Government remains committed to encouraging all institutions named in applications to fulfil their moral obligation to join the Scheme. Institutions are able to join the Scheme throughout the life of the Scheme, maximising access to Redress for survivors. There are also consequences for those institutions who choose not to join the Scheme. These include public naming, restrictions on Commonwealth grant funding and possible loss of their charitable status and associated tax concessions. The Australian Government remains committed to the continuous improvement of the Scheme by increasing its efficiency, cultural safety and accessibility. With regard to the impact on survivors who are First Nations Australians, culturally and linguistically diverse, those with disability, and those who are terminally ill or ageing is critical in improving the Scheme. It is essential that the needs of survivors are being met; that the Scheme is operating effectively; and that the unique and evolving challenges in administering a trauma-informed Scheme are being addressed. In undertaking the Review, survivor voices were front and centre and Ms Kruk consulted extensively with survivors, advocacy groups, support services, institutions and Commonwealth and state and territory governments. The Review made 38 recommendations to increase access to Redress and improve the Scheme's operation, making it more trauma-informed, efficient and ultimately more survivor-focussed. Of the recommendations, 29 were supported in full, 5 in part and 4 were not supported. This Bill will fulfil the work of the Review and improve the Scheme and the experience of survivors for its remaining life. A number of the recommendations have already been implemented, including: advance payments; changing to the date for indexation of relevant prior payments; removing the requirement for a witnessed statutory declaration; introducing payment by instalments; and extending funder of last resort provisions. This Bill continues this Government's work in improving the Scheme, and gives effect to the remaining changes outlined in the Government's Final Response to the Review, released on 4 May 2023. In line with the Scheme's governance arrangements, all state and territory governments, as partners in the Scheme, have agreed to the amendments in the Bill. This Bill will improve accessibility to Redress, enhance choices for survivors, increase transparency, and hold the Scheme accountable in delivering its commitment to trauma-informed, survivor-focussed delivery. These outcomes are addressed through progressing the following amendments to the Redress Act: Reassessment of finalised applications when an institution named later joins the Scheme Where applicants name an institution that has not joined the Scheme, some may choose to wait to see if the institution joins the Scheme, while others choose to progress their application. There are currently no avenues to find a non- participating institution liable after a determination is made, when that institution subsequently joins the Scheme. This Bill introduces a new reassessment process m response to recommendation 3.1 of the Review, making it fairer for survivors who may have been disadvantaged where an institution was not participating at the time their application was progressed. Where an institution identified in their application later joins the Scheme, or where a government later agrees to be the funder of last resort for the institution, applicants will now have the option of having their application reassessed. This amendment acknowledges that some survivors have chosen to progress their application without all relevant institutions participating, and seeks to provide an option for these survivors to have their Redress outcome reassessed to include the newly participating institution. When an institution joins the Scheme, including those that have joined to date, the Scheme will contact applicants where that institution was identified in their application. Where a survivor accepts a reassessed outcome, the institution(s)' liability will be updated to reflect any changes. Review of determinations Currently, the Redress Act does not allow applicants to submit further information when requesting a review of a decision. The Second Year Review found this position limits procedural fairness and, along with the risk of a redress offer being reduced, deters survivors from requesting a review. In response to recommendation 5.1 of the Second Year Review, this measure will allow applicants to provide additional information when requesting a review. The changes will also introduce a 'no worse off provision so that Redress offers are not reduced on review due to a differing interpretation by the reviewing Independent Decision Maker. To protect Scheme integrity, reviewed decisions can still be adjusted to account for new information that was not available at the time of the original decision. This could include a previously undeclared prior payment; in this example, the final redress amount may be reduced on review. The 'no worse off provision is also limited to remain consistent with the principles of the Scheme and account for fraud and misleading information supplied. Eligibility for people with serious criminal convictions Currently, applicants who are sentenced to imprisonment for five years or longer for a single offence (defined as a Serious Criminal Conviction) are not entitled to redress unless the Operator is satisfied that providing redress to the applicant will not bring the Scheme into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in, or support for, the Scheme. For the Scheme Operator to make this determination, applicants with a Serious Criminal Conviction are required to undergo a special assessment process. This process includes seeking advice from the Attorneys General in the jurisdiction(s) where the offence(s) and child sexual abuse occurred. The special assessment process has resulted in delays for this group of applicants. In_response to recommendation 3.2 of the Review, this Bill limits the special assessment process to specific classes of serious offences. This will reduce the circumstances where applicants are required to go through the special assessment process. To achieve this, only applicants who are sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more for unlawful killing, sexual offences, or terrorism offences, or where a risk to the integrity of the Scheme exists, will be required to undergo the special assessment process. Eligibility for prisoners A survivor who is currently incarcerated cannot make an application to the Scheme, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the application being made. For example, where the survivor will not be released before the Scheme ends on 30 June 2028, or is so ill that they cannot make an application for redress upon their release from gaol. In response to recommendation 3.2 of the Review, this Bill removes the restriction on incarcerated survivors from making an application to the Scheme. Practically, this means all incarcerated survivors will be able to access redress where they meet the eligibility requirements and those applying from gaol will no longer need to submit an applying from gaol form, or supply the Scheme with information outlining exceptional circumstances. This will remove a significant barrier for incarcerated survivors in applying for redress and will provide greater accessibility to the Scheme for a cohort of survivors where there is an acknowledged impact of institutional child sexual abuse. Amendments to the protected information provisions The Scheme receives and holds very sensitive information about people, and the protected information framework is designed so that this information is handled in a manner that reflects this. The Second Year Review recommendation 3.14 suggested the scope and content of the protected information provisions be reviewed, with specific regard to the protection of information provided by applicants and the permitted use by the Scheme Operator and institutions of that information. A review of the protected information framework found that overall the current provisions are appropriate and required for the operation of the Scheme and protection of children; but it identified some measures to improve the framework which are included in this Bill. The changes will enable the Scheme Operator to disclose: protected information to an applicant that an institution is not participating in the scheme. Matters that may be disclosed include that the Scheme has contacted an institution about participating in the Scheme and they have not responded; that the institution informed the Scheme that they intend to participate, and that the institution has advised the Scheme they do not intend to participate. This amendment is designed to improve transparency with survivors on the steps taken by the institution they named in their application to join the Scheme. relevant protected information to a public trustee to ascertain whether an applicant is subject to a financial management order and support an applicant's financial affairs where they are subject to a financial management order. This measure will also allow a person engaged by a participating institution to disclose protected information to another institution within the same participating group for the purpose of an internal investigation and disciplinary procedures. Funder of last resort In response to the Review, the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of last Resort and Other Measures) Act 2021 (the 2021 FOLR Act) extended the Funder of Last Resort (FOLR) arrangements in the Redress Act. This extended the provisions to encompass non-defunct institutions that are unable to participate in the Scheme, and defunct institutions with which participating jurisdictions do not share responsibility for abuse and there is no parent institution to take responsibility. This Bill would make technical amendments to the FOLR provisions to ensure where a payment is made under the Redress Act and the 2021 FOLR Act, final figures for invoicing are appropriately rounded up to the nearest cent. Additionally, this Bill would make technical amendments to ensure a FOLR's redress liability is not double counted in limited scenarios when applying the provisions of both the Redress Act and the 2021 FOLR Act. Summary To conclude, this Bill introduces the remaining legislative amendments arising from the Australian Government's Final Response to the Second Year Review and includes additional improvements to the operation of the Scheme. Considering the compounding impact for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse is at the forefront of all the Scheme does; it guides policy, legislation and how redress is delivered to survivors. This Bill is representative of this government's commitment to uphold the trauma-informed principles that guide the Scheme. The legislative changes have been made in consultation with states and territories as our partners in the Scheme. The Government is pleased to outline these important and substantial amendments and looks forward to continuing to improve the Scheme for the benefit of survivors. PAID PARENTAL LEAVE AMENDMENT (MORE SUPPORT FOR WORKING FAMILIES) BILL 2023 Labor has a long and proud history of improving the lives of Australian families with critical, nation-building reforms. It was Labor governments who created Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Labor governments introduced no fault divorce, the single mothers benefit and the child support system. And it was a Labor government—the Gillard Government—that introduced Paid Parental Leave in this country. When Paid Parental Leave was introduced in 2011, it was a major milestone for Australian families. As the Minister for Families, the Honourable Jenny Macklin MP, said in Parliament at the time: "This historic reform is a major win for working families who have been waiting decades for a national paid parental leave scheme". For many parents, the 18-week payment—fully funded by the Government—was the first time they could access any paid parental leave. This was a material advancement in workplace and economic equality for women, whose disproportionate share of unpaid care has long-term consequences for their economic security. Paid Parental Leave is critical for families, it is critical for women and it is critical for the economy. The Albanese Government knows this. We know paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of parents and their children. We know investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy. And we know that paid parental leave can advance gender equality. We heard these messages loud and clear at our successful Jobs and Skills Summit, where gender equality and economic reform went hand in hand. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families—and, importantly, more opportunity for women. That is why Paid Parental Leave reform was a centrepiece of our first Budget. As the Prime Minister said at the time: "a parental leave system that empowers the full and equal participation of women will be good for business, good for families and good for our economy." Earlier this year, our Government implemented legislation to modernise the system to reflect how Australian families and their needs have evolved over the last decade. Our changes, which commenced on 1 July, give more families access to the payment, give parents more flexibility in how they take leave, and encourage them to share care. These important structural changes laid a strong foundation for our expansion to 26 weeks, which is the focus of this Bill. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 increases the scheme to six months by 2026. It implements in full our commitment from the 2022-23 October Budget and represents a total investment of $1.2 billion over five years. It is a privilege to stand in this chamber and introduce a bill that delivers the largest expansion of Paid Parental Leave in its history. It provides families an extra six weeks of Government-paid leave, increasing the overall length of the scheme to six months by 2026. As a result of these reforms, from 2026-27 the Government's total investment in PPL will be around $4.4 billion a year. This significant investment reflects our Government's commitment to deliver better outcomes for families and advance economic equality for women. The roughly 180,000 families who receive the payment each year will benefit from a more generous scheme that supports maternal health and wellbeing, encourages both parents to take leave, and gives families flexibility to choose how they share care. Not only will this help families better balance work and care, it will also support participation and productivity over the longer term, providing a dividend for the Australian economy. I am pleased that our reform has been widely welcomed by family and gender advocates, employer and unions groups, including: The Business Council of Australia, who said the expansion doesn't just help make a fairer society, but is also a major economic reform that will help raise workforce participation and boost productivity; The ACTU, who said the increase to 26 weeks was a great step forward for Australian parents, particularly working women, and a stark contrast to the policies and attitudes to women that we saw under the previous Government; and The Parenthood, a leading parent advocacy group, who said this is a significant improvement after no meaningful change to the policy over the last decade. Currently, a working family can access up to 20 weeks of Government-funded Paid Parental Leave. To encourage shared care, two weeks are reserved for each parents on a 'use it or lose it' basis, leaving 16 weeks for parents to share however they choose. Starting on 1 July 2024, this Bill expands the scheme by two weeks each year until reaching 26 weeks—a full six months—in 2026. By 1 July 2026, the scheme will be 26 weeks long, with four weeks reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis. That leaves 18 weeks that parents can choose to share however they wish. For instance, a couple may decide to share leave equally and take 13 weeks each. Meanwhile single parents will have access to the full 26-week entitlement. Coupled parents will also be able to take up to four weeks of PPL at the same time. Currently, parents may take up to two weeks together. Enabling parents to take parental leave together has positive effects for maternal recovery. It provides the birth parent with extra support as they recover and is shown to reduce parenting stress. I would like to thank the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, chaired by Sam Mostyn AO, who provided advice to the Government on the optimal model of the 26-week scheme. The settings in the Bill reflect the advice from the Taskforce. The Bill's carefully designed changes all work together to strike an important balance of increasing support to families, encouraging both parents to take leave, and providing flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements. Supporting maternal health and recovery from childbirth is an important objective of Paid Parental Leave. The Bill strengthens this objective by extending the length of the scheme, which has long-term health and wellbeing benefits for children and their parents. Another key objective of the scheme is encouraging fathers and partners to take leave, which in turn helps balance work and family life, and promotes gender equality. International evidence is clear that when fathers take a more active role in looking after their children and participate in home life, mothers feel more supported to return to work. That's great for the family and for the economy. Often both parents want to take some time off work to be with their child after birth. Nevertheless, we know not all secondary caregivers feel confident to take parental leave. Research shows that periods of leave set aside for partners, and not transferrable to the birth parent, encourages secondary caregivers to take leave. It helps to normalise fathers' use of parental leave and signals that parenting is a shared, equal partnership. When fathers take a greater caring role from the start, evidence shows there is a more even distribution of household responsibilities, which persists throughout the child's life. The changes in this Bill sends a clear message that the Government supports shared care, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and our communities. Helping both parents balance caring responsibilities has significant benefits for families, businesses, the economy and gender equality. Government provides critical support through the tax-payer funded paid parental leave scheme, but employers also have a key role to play. The Government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer-provided leave. Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has increased over the last decade. In 2021-22, 62 per cent of reporting employers offered employer- funded paid parental leave, up from 48 per cent in 2013-14. This positive trend demonstrates employers increasingly see themselves as having a role alongside the Government in providing paid parental leave. We want to see this keep growing. We want paid parental leave to continue to be recognised and celebrated as not only great social policy, but also a valuable workplace investment that returns benefits for parents, employers, and the economy. In summary, it is critical that our Paid Parental Leave scheme supports modem Australian families—a scheme that is flexible, fair and drives positive health, social and economic outcomes for both parents and their children. This Bill does just that. Crucially, it gives more families access to the Government payment, provides parents more flexibility in how they take leave, and encourages them to share care to support gender equality. Paid Parental Leave is a proud Labor legacy and we will always work to strengthen it. This Bill is good for parents, good for children, good for employers and good for the economy. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 124

Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023

First Reading 124 16:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 124 16:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Introduction Modern slavery is among the most egregious forms of human rights abuses and deprives their victims of their dignity, fundamental rights, and freedoms. The Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill is a landmark reform in Australia's comprehensive response to modern slavery. The Bill establishes the first federal Anti-Slavery Commissioner to deliver critical functions to tackle the scourge of modern slavery in Australia and abroad. Purpose Modern slavery encompasses a range of serious exploitative practices, including trafficking in persons, slavery and slavery-like practices such as deceptive recruiting, debt bondage, forced labour and forced marriage. The Albanese Government is strengthening Australia's response to modern slavery, ensuring we work to prevent, disrupt, and prosecute these heinous crimes, and protect victims and survivors, and individuals at risk. There are several pillars to Australia's response to combat modern slavery underpinned by Australia's National Action Plan to Combat Modern Slavery 2020-25. We have comprehensive criminal offences, specialist Australian Federal Police investigative teams, and a dedicated support program for victims and survivors. We have a dedicated human trafficking visa framework and a human trafficking and modern slavery research program and research network. The Modern Slavery Act established a transparency regime to shine a light on modern slavery risks in the supply chains and operations of certain entities carrying out business in Australia. We also have strong international and regional engagement on modern slavery. However, the Albanese Government recognises more can be done. We know that measuring the true extent of modern slavery crimes is significantly challenging and changing. Crimes are often clandestine, sophisticated, targeted at vulnerable cohorts, and underreported. The time is now for us to bolster Australia's strong response to modern slavery through a new independent Ant-Slavery Commissioner. The Commissioner will complement Australia's comprehensive response to modern slavery by working with others to raise the national profile of the issue of modern slavery. This Bill amends the Modern Slavery Act 2018 to establish the inaugural Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner as an independent statutory office holder. The Commissioner adds a further pillar to Australia's response by working across Government, business and civil society to support compliance with the Modern Slavery Act, improve transparency in supply chains, and fight modern slavery in Australia and abroad. Importantly, the establishment of the Commissioner provides an independent mechanism for victims and survivors, business and civil society to engage on issues and strategies to address modern slavery. Functions of the Commissioner The Bill confers a number of critical functions on the Commissioner. The Commissioner will play a key role in educating and raising awareness of modern slavery in Australia across the wider community. This includes delivering education and community awareness raising initiatives to highlight modern slavery risks and how those risks may be addressed across all sectors. The Commissioner will support and empower victims and survivors of modern slavery. The Commissioner will support victims of modern slavery through the provision of information in relation to government and non-government resources, programs and services. Importantly, the Commissioner will engage, and promote engagement with victims and survivors of modern slavery to ensure their voices inform measures that address modern slavery. The Commissioner will work to support business to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains. The Commissioner will have an important role in promoting and harnessing research and data capabilities, to support evidence-based responses to modern slavery. It is important that the Government continues to lead by example in tackling modern slavery. The Commissioner will therefore advocate to the Commonwealth Government for continuous improvement in policy and practice. At the request of the Minister, the Commissioner will be empowered to provide advice to the Minister about matters relating to modern slavery. Commonwealth agencies will also work cooperatively with the Commissioner to assist with their important work. While the Commissioner will not investigate or deal directly with individual matters of modern slavery, they may make observations regarding systemic issues based on their engagement with victims and survivors and the broader community. Governance and Other Issues The Bill provides the Commissioner will be appointed through a merit-based and transparent selection process, on a full-time basis for a term of up to five years. To be effective in their role, it is key that the Commissioner be independent. Therefore, the Bill provides that the Commissioner will have discretion in performing or exercising these functions, and will not be subject to direction from anyone when doing so. To support transparency, accountability and the effectiveness of the independent Commissioner's functions, the Commissioner will be required to develop a strategic plan as soon as practicable after their commencement that sets out what and how they intend to deliver and monitor the effectiveness of their functions. They will be required to develop an annual report, to be tabled in Parliament, outlining their key progress and milestones. The Government has committed $8 million over four years, and $2 million ongoing, to support the Commissioner's establishment and operations. Review of the Modern Slavery Act This Bill delivers on a key election commitment made by this Government and is the first step in considering further reforms to combat modern slavery. The Government is committed to strengthening the Modern Slavery Act and is carefully considering the recommendations of the review of the Modern Slavery Act finalised earlier this year. Once appointed, the Commissioner will play a key role in shaping implementation of future reforms. Conclusion The establishment of the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner is a pioneering reform and a new, independent pillar in Australia's comprehensive response to countering modern slavery. The Government is resolute in its intent for the role of the Commissioner to make a tangible, positive impact. I am proud to introduce this Bill, which marks a necessary and critical next step in our global fight against modern slavery. This Bill follows the extraordinary efforts and tireless work of victims and survivors, civil society and industry stakeholders who campaigned for this important milestone. I thank each and every one of those individuals who have partnered with Government over many years to strengthen Australia's response. It is your voices and experiences that inspire us every day to fight against modern slavery both here in Australia and abroad. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 28 February 2024. Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023 126

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023

Returned from the House of Representatives 126 COMMITTEES 126 COMMITTEES National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee 126 Membership 126 DOCUMENTS 126 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Fuel Efficiency Standards 126 Order for the Production of Documents 126 16:57 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the new vehicle efficiency standard. MOTIONS 126 MOTIONS Excess Deaths 126 16:58 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I move: That the Senate acknowledges that: (a) the concerning number of excess deaths observed in Australia in 2021 and 2022 has continued into 2023 as evidenced by all-cause provisional mortality data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics; and (b) there is a need for further inquiry as to the reasons for these excess deaths. In March last year, I asked the Senate to investigate excess mortality in Australia because it was at an all-time high, unfortunately. That month the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that excess deaths were more than 15 per cent above the historical average. As I said at that time, it was equivalent to something like a giant passenger plane crashing every single week for a whole year. Yet, incredibly, and unfortunately, the Senate refused to investigate this unexplained increase in deaths. Since then, the tragedy has continued. In 2023, 12,377 excess deaths occurred by 30 September. That's 9.9 per cent more than the baseline average. So far, the ABS estimates there have been 29,601 excess deaths from March 2021 to August 2023. Every one of these deaths is a person who would not have died if it had been a normal year with a normal number of deaths. Just yesterday, I moved a motion to refer this issue to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee. I gave all my colleagues in this place the opportunity to help us investigate the causes of our excess death rate. Sadly, my motion was defeated and 35 of my fellow senators in this place, in my opinion, stood in the way of truth and justice for many people in that community. This is a matter of life and death, but it seems that, unfortunately, many in this place would rather remain ignorant. The Australian Labor Party, the Greens, Senator Lambie, Senator Tyrrell and Senator Thorpe stood in the way of this inquiry and voted against it. It's shameful, in my opinion. I must ask: what have you got to hide? What are you scared of? I would like to, however, acknowledge my colleagues from the coalition and One Nation and Senator David Pocock for supporting my motion yesterday. Thank you for doing the right thing. I'd also like to acknowledge the Australian Medical Professionals Society, AMPS, who have stepped up to the plate and completed the hard work that many of my colleagues in this place have shamefully refused to do. Last year, AMPS held their own inquiry in Parliament House. That was a fair inquiry. It was aimed at addressing the crisis of excess mortality in Australia. The information they presented was sobering to say the least. But, sadly, in their inquiry, the attendance by senators or their staff was appallingly low. They were unfortunately ignored by most in this place. AMPS have gone on to put their findings into a book which is bound to attract attention around the world, titled Too Many Dead: An Inquiry into Australia's Excess Mortality. All of my colleagues have been sent an electronic version of this. I urge them to read it and to be informed. These Australians have taken it upon themselves to do the work that we should be completing here. The government should be doing this work. Yesterday, Minister Gallagher said that the government does not support my motion and reiterated that the ABS is the definitive authority on mortality statistics and data in Australia. I agree. Yes, Minister; they are. They have identified a significant issue, but we should explore that issue. The Australian people are screaming out for answers. The ABS does not speculate as to why more Australians are dying of certain illnesses. That is our job in this place. Minister Gallagher also stated that every death that makes up a total statistic is a personal tragedy and she acknowledged the tragic impact of these deaths on the families and friends of those who have unfortunately lost their lives. Minister, these families deserve closure. We must interrogate the causes to ensure that the trend of excess mortality comes to an end. In 2020, our country, our states, were shut down to save lives. Every single COVID related death was documented in regular reports produced by state and territory health departments. They were announced by premiers in regular press briefings. TV news stations ran counts. COVID statistics became somewhat of a national obsession. Yet for thousands of Australians who have since died unexpectedly for unknown reasons the people in charge have shown little concern or motivation to investigate, and the media have been largely mute. It is important to note that excess deaths didn't start in 2020 but in March 2021, the same time as the rollout of the mRNA COVID vaccines. Correlation obviously does not prove causation, but it indicates that the COVID vaccines may have caused or at least contributed to some of these excess deaths. We do know that these novel vaccines have injured and killed many people, but we won't know if there's a link to excess mortality unless we investigate. What we do know is that, if the COVID vaccines were truly safe and effective as we keep hearing, there should have been no severe COVID in Australia and no excess deaths except in the tiny fraction of the population who were not vaccinated, but this isn't what we have seen. For example, the data released by the New South Wales Ministry of Health in 2022 showed that vaccinated people made up the vast majority of people who were hospitalised, treated in the ICU and died. Unsurprisingly, New South Wales stopped publishing this data that didn't fit with the official mantra that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, and that's just not good enough. What we saw was that, once the Australian people were highly vaccinated at the start of 2022, Australia opened its borders and COVID cases and deaths exploded. Not only that: for every single month in 2022 the age standardised rate of death was higher than in any of the preceding three years. Think about that. It's incredible. This was the omicron wave, which was not as lethal as earlier variants, yet highly vaccinated Australians, who expected to be protected by the COVID vaccines, suffered extremely high excess mortality. We know that the COVID-19 vaccines cause heart inflammation, myocarditis and pericarditis. We know that heart inflammation can pass undetected and can be fatal. So it's disturbing to see that, while deaths due to coronary heart disease have fallen, deaths due to other cardiac conditions, which includes deaths due to heart inflammation, increased by 13 per cent in 2022 and 12 per cent in 2023. Other areas of concern are dementia and diabetes. Deaths from dementia increased by 17 per cent in 2022 and by 11 per cent in 2023. Diabetes deaths were up by 20 per cent in 2022 and up by 14 per cent in 2023. There has also been a disturbing increase in cancer, of 6 per cent in 2022 and of 7 per cent in 2023. Where has this spike come from? We need to find out. We owe it to all Australians, especially the family and friends of the almost 30,000 Australians who died prematurely since the start of 2021, to find out what is causing Australia's tragic rise in all-cause mortality and to do everything we can to put an end to this dangerous trend. 17:07 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I just indicate that the government does not support this motion. In fact, much of what sits behind this motion is an assertion that there is data that is unavailable to the public—that there is data that, for all sorts of motivations that are impugned by the characters who share this sort of stuff on social media, has not been made available, for all sorts of nefarious purposes. For the people who spend a lot of time in this place late in the evening on the socials posting thing that are true and things that are untrue, often with a disregard for evidence, science and the institutions that are there to analyse and disseminate the data—of course, I'm sure that there are some people who do that who honestly believe what it is that they say. There are probably a few of those. There are some who know it not to be true but say it anyway because it's a well-worn tactic of people who seek to propagate radical right-wing extremism. There are some who've gone through a bit of a journey themselves who started doing it for those reasons—that is, they latched onto these things as a way of organising the maximum possible position for their political position even if they were things they knew to be untrue, and they have subsequently, in a process of self-radicalisation, begun to believe that they are true. I've seen some evidence of that in this place. It's the kind of process that we've seen in many parts of the world with this kind of conspiracy-theory thinking, bereft of the benefits of the last few centuries of scientific discovery since the Enlightenment and using those for a very narrow, very nasty set of organising propositions. Where there is an event like a global pandemic, it is of course a frightening event. The Spanish flu caused untold misery, untold deaths around the world. There were 19 million deaths in Europe—more than the Great War. In the history of my family in this country, in the space of one week in the town of Uralla, a relative of mine, his daughter and his granddaughter all died of the Spanish flu in their home. It's not imaginable for us here in Australia, where we have the benefits of a health system and we have the state and Commonwealth governments working—not perfectly, but working—to deal with the challenge. People are able to attend hospitals. But remember the beginning of the COVID pandemic. There was no certainty that a vaccine would be developed in time, and people were frightened. Some people in the political system, of course, where they see fear see opportunity. Where they see a capacity to divide people, to isolate them and to frighten them, that is an opportunity. We've seen that in other phases of our history. It will happen again. It certainly happened around the COVID-19 crisis. Some of the things that were being shared on social media in particular were the preserve of the funny characters you would find, when I was growing up in country New South Wales, in the League of Rights. They were the far-right organisation. They made efforts at organising. They made efforts at incursions into political parties. They did their best. They were the jackboot crowd in regional New South Wales and regional Queensland in particular. They'd be handing out the little leaflets outside the show or outside the markets. Senator AYRES 16913 Where there were bookshops, occasionally they would be found, Senator Smith; that's right. It would be all of the conspiracy theory stuff of the age—much of it with an antisemitic overtone, I have to say. Very regrettably, they were Australians who did not understand the moral weight of what it is they were doing. We laughed at those characters because they were isolated and all they could do was hand out something that they had run off on the Gestetner in some lonely garage somewhere and post it around through Australia Post. They would be there at those events. I have to tell you as an aside, colleagues, that the Glen Innes Show is on this weekend. It's where I grew up. It's a fantastic agricultural show. I urge Senator Scarr and Senator Rennick and others making their way back to Queensland to do it by road, go through Glen Innes and see the Glen Innes Show and Mayor Banham. Senator Scarr 282997 Are you in the woodchopping competition? Senator AYRES 16913 I am not going to be in the woodchopping competition. I'm not going to be in the bull riding. Senator AYRES 16913 I won't be in the smash-up derby either. I will be in none of these things, partly because I— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Sorry, Minister; just resume your seat. Senator Rennick? Senator Rennick 283596 I have a point of order on relevance. I think we've got someone filibustering for time here. Can we stay on topic, please? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Rennick, there is absolutely no point of order. If I could impose that penalty, I'd be looking a lot younger after the years I've been in here and what I've listened to. Minister, you have the call. Senator AYRES 16913 And we would have all gone home quite some time ago if Senator Sterle were really in charge of the timing of these things. But it's a fantastic show. Just to make my friend Senator Rennick happy, my point, of course, is that times have changed. It's no longer the preserve of people handing out little roneoed notes distributed from some garage somewhere in the League of Rights headquarters or wherever. Anything can be said on social media. We see deepfake material being sent out. We see assertions being made which sound true but are in fact not true. Things are generated overseas in countries that don't have the best interests of Australians or Australia at heart, in antidemocratic countries, in countries with which we don't share values—adversaries, in fact. Meme factories are generating what I understand are called bots, which share the material on and share the material on—material that is completely untrue. But, if you follow the line from that material back to the antisemitic, nasty conspiracy theory stuff that was being shared by the League of Rights crowd and others, it's a pretty straight line. And what is it that it's our responsibility in this place to do? It is to tell the truth, to support the science, to make sure that governments and this place act with transparency, to do it with confidence and to not be distracted by the efforts of some—not just on the crossbench but within the opposition parties here—who seek to take the utterly rational questions, apprehensions and fears that ordinary Australians of course have when there is an event like a global pandemic. There's a pretty close relationship between pandemic denialism, assertions about vaccines, assertions about the availability of information, and climate denialism, quite frankly. It is all in the same continuum of political activity. I know that on the other side many good people—I wouldn't vote for them in a pink fit, but there are many good people—are doing their best to stand up against this kind of conduct. I'm just saying that now is the time to be firm and resolute. Don't be worried about your preselections. Don't be worried about the hard Right. Don't be worried about the thuggery. Assert what is in the public interest and what is in the national interest. The truth here is that the Australian Bureau of Statistics collects all of this data, mortality statistics and all the related data in Australia, and there are regular publications of that data. Provisional mortality reports are published monthly and every second month, as a way of updating the data in the most transparent way possible. Deaths in Australia are updated annually, and excess mortality reports are published twice-yearly. Now, any person, any researcher, has access to that data. The trick, of course, with data is you've got to have the skills, you've got to have the academic background, you've got to have the research capacity to be able to interpret it intelligently, to analyse it properly and to report on it in a way that is true and ends up being truthful. And that is one of the problems here. You can take any bit of data and produce the kind of material that is being generated by some of those on the other side of this argument. It's published online. It is available to every Australian. It's used by researchers, government departments and agencies like the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and it's reported in reputable publications, by actual academic journals that have standards—where people require doctorates not out of Corn Flakes packets but from reputable universities—and they provide analysis that should guide public policy making. Where there are problems, they should be transparent. But that's what should guide public policy making. In their analysis, the ABS have compared the number of deaths which have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic to the number of deaths expected based on historical trends and adjusted population changes. It includes deaths from all causes, 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, of course, that behind every death sits a personal tragedy. Behind that sits, very often, misery for a family, and they should not be the subject of political manipulation and grandstanding and nasty— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Rennick. 17:23 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I'm glad Senator Ayres has raised the issue of the ABS mortality figures because that is exactly what I was going to talk about today. I want to emphasise that I want to talk about all-cause mortality, not excess deaths, because excess deaths are a modelled figure; I want to talk about the actual figures. In 2019, Australia had 164,000 deaths. In 2020, once COVID started and we had the lockdowns, Australia had 162,000 deaths. In 2021, Australia had 172,000 deaths. There was a rise in 2021 of 10,000 deaths in Australia, despite the fact that Australia did not have an increase in population that year. So the question is this: what caused the rise in deaths by10,000 people? And those deaths occurred in the last eight months of the year. So in the first four months of the year, before the COVID vaccine rollout, there was no increase in deaths from the prior year. That means that the jump in deaths was over a thousand people per month from May onwards. Those figures are recorded in the ABS figures. They are a fact. Now, the question has to be asked: why did all-cause mortality, the number of deaths, rise after the COVID vaccine was rolled out but before COVID was in the community, in December 2021? When we look at the hospital admissions for myocarditis and heart conditions, they jumped as well. We have had the TGA admit that that was because the vaccine caused autoimmune issues. We know that from the TGA report. I don't have to read studies; I read the actual non-clinical report on the COVID vaccine and the product assessment report. This is an mRNA vaccine, a technology that I happened to invest very heavily in prior to coming into parliament. So I'm not some Luddite that is against the technology. I invested in a company called Viralytics which was designed to be used on patients who had stage 3 and stage 4 cancer. They eventually got taken over by Merck & Co. That's why I am familiar with the technology. The thing about the mRNA vaccine is that this was the first time that a drug was ever designed to be delivered inside a human cell. This is the key distinction between an mRNA vaccine and a protein vaccine. Because it goes inside the cell via a process called transfection, which is a novel technology, it induces a T cell response. The body's immune system recognises the foreign body inside a cell and it attacks an otherwise healthy cell. This is a key difference between a protein vaccine, where the immune system recognises the foreign body and generates B cells to attack the foreign protein. The mRNA vaccine generates a T cell to destroy your cell. What we also know is that the coronavirus has 29 proteins. Normally in a traditional protein vaccine you pull off the spike protein and you get 28 other proteins. It's quite a large macromolecule. That is too big to cross the endothelium of the bloodstream. You therefore don't get the same biodistribution as you do with an mRNA vaccine. Because of that, we know from the biodistribution studies on page 45 of the non-clinical report TGA FOI 2389-6, the lipids went throughout all organs in the animal studies. That means all organs are susceptible to autoimmune response by the actual human body. What's more concerning is the fact that the spleen and the bone marrow don't have ACE receptors. The virus cannot get into the white blood cells. The exception to that, of course, is AIDS, which attacks white blood cells. Most other viruses can't attack white blood cells. So by the vaccine—and we saw this on page 45—allowing the lipids to go into the spleen and the bone marrow you are inducing an autoimmune response in all your organs. We have seen an increase in diabetes. That is an autoimmune disease. That is more evidence, along with the increase in people being admitted to hospital with myocarditis, of autoimmune issues. People are entitled to know. As Senator Ayres said, every life is important. People are entitled to know why 10,000 extra people died in the period before COVID was in the community yet after the vaccine rollout. 17:28 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the motion be now put. Question negatived. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 130 ADJOURNMENT Murray-Darling Basin Plan 130 17:29 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia After a very busy day in this chamber, achieving what I think are some pretty excellent industrial relations reforms, I'd like to change the tone, talk a little bit about the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and bring attention to the actions of the Albanese Labor government in wasting no time to deliver this. This is the plan that we saw stagnate for nine long years. This is the plan that, under the Liberal-National government, failed to achieve all of the targets and failed to achieve so much of what had been agreed to all those years ago. But, through the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Act 2023, which passed last year, the Albanese Labor government is giving the states more time to recover that water, it is giving more options in how that water gets delivered, and, importantly, it is imposing more accountability to the public. We have seen, over 10 long years, so many stories and investigations into the challenges in that river—the rorting and the people who are not doing the right thing—and now we're in a situation where we can deliver the Basin Plan on our revised act and with the revised elements, time frames and accountability. Last week, the first of three new programs rolled out, and that was the Resilient Rivers Water Infrastructure Program, which enables state governments to bring forward water-saving infrastructure projects—projects that they've been thinking about and that can actually deliver water and start to achieve those targets that have been ignored for so long. This revised plan that we have has been a long time coming, but it strikes a balance—a balance that seems to be the sticking point of every argument we have in this place about the Murray. Those opposite believe that we can only support the agriculture and irrigating sectors and not the environment, and those on the Greens benches believe that we can only look after the environment. Well, what's good news for this country, for Australians and for the river is that the Albanese Labor government can walk and chew gum at the same time. We are firmly of the opinion—and the science backs us up—that you can do both. We can strengthen the river and improve the health of the river in a manner that will support the agriculture, the irrigators, the community and the environment. It is vital that the river support our agricultural communities. It provides so much essential food and fibre for this country, and we are right behind those people. But, without it being a healthy river, they cannot have the most robust business that is possible. They cannot continue on a river that is damaged and degraded. That is not a long-term solution. So we believe that our plan that passed this parliament last year is the answer and the way forward. We can support the environment. We can support the wetlands, the birds, the endangered species and all of the other amazing things that exist along that river system to remain there and become stronger. We can support those communities and ensure that that vital river system is strong, resilient and robust into the future, that it has a lengthy future, that irrigators and producers can survive and build their businesses, that communities can thrive and that the environment can thrive alongside them. Energy 131 17:34 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Late last year I had the privilege to join many of my state and federal parliamentary colleagues on a delegation to Dubai for COP28 with Environmental Leadership Australia. The trip was a reminder of the challenges of climate change, how they are absolutely a global effort and how the transition away from fossil fuels to renewables is underway. But what becomes abundantly clear with the information and the learnings from that trip is that it is also a commercial imperative, an economic opportunity. It is important to note that it was under the previous Liberal government that Australia committed to reaching net zero by 2050. We joined 140 other nations such as the UK, the US, China and India in the efforts to reduce emissions. This coalition of nations accounts for about 92 per cent of global GDP. As we know, momentum is growing and investment in renewable energy now outpaces investment in fossil fuels. Some 40 per cent of new global capital is being invested in renewables. This is a free market decision. In fact, global investment in the low-carbon energy transition surged 17 per cent in 2023, reaching $1.77 trillion, according to Energy transition investment trends 2024. This is equal to Australia's GDP. As I and my colleagues discovered, the transition to renewables offers a huge economic opportunity for our country. According to BloombergNEF's New energy outlook: Australia report, in May 2023 Australia's transition to net zero alone represents an investment opportunity of US$1.9 trillion by 2050. By fostering renewable and low-carbon industries, Australia has an opportunity to revitalise its manufacturing industry. We could do this by properly taking advantage of our huge renewable resources such as our abundance of sunlight and off- and onshore wind resources. One stakeholder in Dubai noted to us that we had an unmatched potential to be the global leader in renewable innovation and investment. We shouldn't be afraid to look at these opportunities for our country. With our wealth of clean energy alongside our critical mineral reserves, we could establish a world-leading battery manufacturing industry, which, according to Beyond Zero Emissions, could create 44,000 jobs and $57 billion in GDP in 2035. We have a nation-building opportunity to insert ourselves into clean energy supply chains, especially with critical minerals. Our critical minerals sector is constantly growing in response to the increasing global need for a secure supply of these vital and strategic resources. Australia's identified mineral resources 2023 shows that, in 2022, Australia retained its position as the world's top lithium producer, with 52 per cent, and was also a top five producer for cobalt, at three per cent; manganese ore, at 10 per cent; rare earths, at five per cent; rutile, at 27 per cent; tantalum, at four per cent; and zircon, at 25 per cent. As well as being a global leader in the supply of critical minerals, many other deposits have been discovered and are under development—again creating opportunity. Critical minerals, alongside new industries such as green hydrogen, offer export opportunities, especially when considering that 85 per cent of our exports in 2021 went to countries that have net zero targets. The opportunities decarbonisation offers is especially true in rural and regional Australia, but they shouldn't continue to carry the entire burden of our transition to net zero. Cities must be built to be more climate resistant, and we must find ways to generate energy within our cities. Australia has the opportunity to be an energy powerhouse. We need to get on with it and make the most of this opportunity with benefits to our environment, our economy and the prosperity of Australians. Health 132 17:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The greatest victim of COVID-19 was not the many Australians who, sadly, lost their lives to this man-made virus that Australia helped develop. It was not the many thousands of Australians who, sadly, died from injections and jabs that are proving to be the crime of the century; the greatest victim was public health. Confidence in public health is at an all-time low. Childhood vaccination rates are plummeting. Parents are choosing not to engage with the childcare system and, increasingly, the education system to protect their children from public health. The nation's health survey was released over Christmas, and I thank News Limited for this report, which acts as a second opinion on the performance of our health officials. It's one the health officials will not enjoy reading. Let me share some of the findings with you: Today … Australians are at significant risk of dying young or living with preventable chronic diseases, with two thirds of us being overweight or obese. More troubling for our health bureaucrats is that so few respondents were interested in doing anything about it, choosing instead to sit in front of a computer or TV screen for more than eight hours a day, shun exercise and eat junk food. News Limited have taken up the challenge of equipping their readers with simple advice to improve their health. Isn't that our health authorities' job? Remember Life. Be in it? Overweight Norm and his family, which started in 1979 and went into hibernation until recently, as it turns out. Public health is supposed to be about preventative medicine, encouraging people to get into life, get into some exercise and fresh air, and interact with others in a sporting, outdoor or otherwise active context. It's great advice—advice that saves the taxpayer money, correcting conditions that are self-inflicted. Saying obesity is self-inflicted will earn you the ire of the woke brigade, who call that 'fat shaming'. Someone has to. According to the study, Queensland is the third-fattest state in the nation, with 33 per cent of people identifying as obese. That's one-third. This data is for Australians generally. It does not include the increase in youth depression and suicide that resulted from our failed COVID response and fear campaign. Sedentary lifestyles lead to chronic diseases and illnesses, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes and dementia. This afternoon I plan to speak about the 13 per cent increase in Australian mortality. Those deaths occurred largely in the areas of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and dementia. Many, including myself, are blaming the increase in unexplained deaths in Australia on the COVID-19 injections. Many of those are. Yet other reasons may be brought to light in a COVID royal commission that we need. One of those will be the failure of our health authorities to follow the most simple and fundamental pieces of health advice: preventative medicine. Everyday Australians were advised to isolate from others and stay inside away from the sun, yet sunshine is a common natural treatment for COVID. The advice to stay out of the sun is the opposite of the advice that should have been provided. We knew right through COVID that those who were obese were the group most at-risk for an adverse reaction to COVID-19. Where was the advice to eat healthy, exercise and lose weight? Nothing. The only advice was to be afraid, be terrified, so as to force a fear-based level of obedience in a country that had always used a mate's approach to health, like Life. Be in it. At the same time, our health bureaucrats have acted to protect their friends in the quit-smoking industry through this recent ban on vapes. They're protecting the quit-smoking industry, not smokers. One million Australians use a vape, many of whom use it to quit smoking. Australia's smoking rate is higher than in countries with laws that allow vaping. Vaping stops smoking. Britain's National Health Service advocate vaping as a quit-smoking medium, and our health authorities ban it. Why do they do that? In 2024 public health has changed direction. Preventative health has turned into restorative health. Our health industry is now standing, figuratively, on every street corner hawking the latest drug to correct the very conditions that their failures in public health have made worse. How has this come about? How is this allowed to continue? These are my questions to government and to the media. Will you please start asking those questions? Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month 132 17:44 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Yesterday morning I attended the International Women's Day parliamentary breakfast, organised by the United Nations Women Australia, here in this place. We were reminded of the importance of fighting for equality, for ensuring that gender is not the defining factor for your equality of opportunity. Most importantly, we were reminded of being counted in, being offered equality of opportunity and being offered the same experiences as everyone else Unfortunately, one battle that many women in Australia and the world must face all too often is that of ovarian cancer, especially women over the age of 50. It truly is a very scary challenge for us and one which can completely turn lives upside down. With this month—February—being the nationally recognised awareness month for ovarian cancer, I thought it appropriate to raise the illness as an issue of concern here in this chamber tonight. This cancer is one which starts as a tumour in a woman's ovaries and generally begins in the cells which line the ovary. This accounts for nine out of 10 cases. Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed late and is therefore very difficult to treat successfully. In 2022, over 1,800 women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and over 1,000 of them died as a result. That is the scary reality in Australia today. I've been speaking on this issue every year that I've been in this chamber, and we're not seeing the results that we need to see. However, we are very lucky to live in a country which is at the forefront of advanced medical technology and research. I'm very thankful for the Menzies Institute of Medical Research and the Wicking centre in my home state of Tasmania. Since the 1980s, serious cancers of the fallopian tube have increased, which are closely linked to ovarian cancer. Diagnosed cancers of ovarian cancer have, however, decreased since the 1980s, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Since the early 1990s, survival rates of ovarian cancer diagnoses and cases have also increased. They are now at a level of 49 per cent. While this may seem low, it's due to the high incidence of late diagnosis that is linked to survival rates being at this low level. A key issue of concern for me is the incidence of ovarian cancer diagnosis in my home state of Tasmania. At home in Tasmania, our health system is suffering from the last 11 years of a state Liberal government. It's in tatters. This also means that the likelihood of instances of ovarian cancer are higher because our health system can't maintain early diagnosis and, therefore, circumvent the issue before it happens. It is also concerning that an illness so serious as ovarian cancer only yields research results from 2019 nationally and 2020 at a Tasmanian level. When ovarian cancer has a survival rate of a mere 49 per cent, you would think that the medical research industry would be more concerned about statistics being up to date and awareness of this illness being promoted. In 2019 there were 40 diagnosed cases of ovarian cancer in Tasmania. As a senator for Tasmania, I feel that these 40 women living with ovarian cancer deserve fully to be recognised in this place. So my urgent plea is, if you're a woman listening to this and you're experiencing bloating and pain in the abdomen, pain in the pelvis, changes to your menstrual or menopausal patterns, I urge you to visit your GP, your local hospital or your Medicare urgent-care clinic to be examined. Taking some time out to do that could save your life. If you aren't happy with your GP or with a diagnosis, seek a second opinion. Young women are dying. Women over 50 are dying because they are diagnosed too late. This is a killer disease. It does not have the same prominence as breast cancer perhaps because it's a bit more sexy to talk about breast cancer than to talk about ovarian cancer. We have to change that. I urge you all in this place to raise awareness of ovarian cancer when you go back to your home states. Bring this to the fore so we can talk about it and increase the survival rates of those diagnosed with this deadly disease. Prime Minister, Taxation 133 17:49 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese obviously thought he was being funny this week when he compared Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton to Jack Nicholson in The Shining. It was a revealing moment not only because the Prime Minister seemed genuinely amused by the joke but also in showing how dependent Prime Minister Albanese is on his spin doctors. Surely one of his many advisers could have found a more apt allusion. Alas, the joke ended up on the Prime Minister anyway when the member for Wannon, my colleague Mr Dan Tehan, suggested a more fitting and better known Hollywood line. 'You can't handle the truth,' he said. Even members of Anthony Albanese's own government appreciated this until they realised they were laughing at the wrong joke. It's now been two weeks since the Prime Minister spent close to half a million taxpayer dollars flying Labor colleagues and staff to Canberra to rubberstamp his broken tax promise, an achievement they celebrated later the same day with cocktails and canapes at the Lodge. Unfortunately for Treasurer Jim Chalmers, his celebrations were necessarily brief. That's because, as the more popular of the two of them, he was sent out by the Prime Minister with the task of coaxing the public into accepting this great deception. But the best Jim Chalmers has been able to do is to come up with a substitute for his tax sellout by calling it tax reform. I'd suggest that the Treasurer and Labor try to conjure up something a little bit more convincing because, as Australians have shown repeatedly, they don't like being treated as idiots and don't appreciate being lied to. Australians know lifting two thresholds of a single tax and shifting bracket creep from one family to another family is no more a reform than the Labor Party of Albanese is the Labor of Bob Hawke. Winston Churchill once said that any politician can rat—as in to break a promise—but it takes a real ability to re-rat. Anthony Albanese's staff are going to have to pull off— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, refer to members by their correct title. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's staff are going to have to pull off one of the greatest re-rats of history to try to convince Australians they can ever be trusted on tax again. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, I think you should withdraw that. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Which part? The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm not repeating it. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I'm happy to withdraw. True reform is what the coalition had legislated—the plan Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised to uphold on more than 100 occasions. It was to address bracket creep, the great thief in the night, which has never seen the government's receipts soar from tax increases Australians never voted for. Instead, we have what is akin to shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. Having proven themselves incapable of managing the economy, with 12 interest rate rises, an increase to the public sector wage bill of more than $1 billion, record and unmodelled immigration and the biggest decline in inflation adjusted wages across the OECD, Labor has decided to bypass genuine reform and instead pinned its hopes on a short-term reward. Their target, of course, is Dunkley and saving the Prime Minister. My advice to Prime Minister Albanese is to remember the promise made by one of his predecessors, Julia Gillard—namely that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. She broke her word, and the fate of Labor was sealed for years to come. Once respect is lost, it's hard to regain. The same goes for trust. It's a lesson Labor is about to learn. In contrast, the coalition will go to the next election and to the voters of Dunkley advocating for the reforms of stage 3, the reforms that until two weeks ago were also Labor policy. We will roll back bracket creep for everyone because we know people rise through income levels as their careers progress and their expertise grows and because a mature government represents the entire country, not temporary income groups. We will have a lower, simpler and fairer tax system, one that reflects the striving and the aspirational as well as the generous and equitable spirit of this country, Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind honourable senators that legislation committees will meet to consider estimates commencing on Monday 12 February 2024 at 9 am. Senate adjourned at 17:54