The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to allow a motion relating to funding for UNRWA to be moved immediately.
It is with profound regret that I must now inform you that the Agency has reached breaking point, with Israel's repeated calls to dismantle UNRWA and the freezing of funding by donors at a time of unprecedented humanitarian needs in Gaza.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [12:20]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
The Senate divided. [12:24]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024
Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024
… there is no reasonable argument for any senator in this place, particularly those on the government benches, to oppose this bill.
We've always been committed to getting fuel efficiency standards in place …
So when fuel efficiency standards were introduced in the US—
So when fuel efficiency standards were introduced in the US, the most popular models before introduction stayed the most popular models after introduction … what we'd call utes …There wasn't a material change in price and we don't expect that there would be a material change in price here.
Well, we are adopting increasing fuel efficiency standards and that's a good thing. I don't have a problem with that. We should be doing that, and the fleet should be progressively getting cleaner and a lower intensity of emissions.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all coalition questions without notice asked today.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Women, Senator Gallagher, to a question without notice I asked today relating to gender equality.
1) the Senate notes that:
a) during Question Time today, Prime Minister Albanese said "what the Senate can do with the support of the Liberals and the Greens is to vote for these tax cuts and vote for them today"; and
b) the Government has not put forward a proposal to ensure the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 are passed today; and
2) on Tuesday, 27 February 2024, the hours of meeting be 12 pm till adjournment and the routine of business from 7.30 pm be consideration of the bills;
3) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills only; and
4) following consideration of the bills being completed, the Senate return to its routine of business.
Omit paragraphs (b) to (d), substitute:
(a) the bills be called on immediately;
(b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put at 6.30 pm;
(c) paragraph (c) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(d) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills only; and
(e) following consideration of the bills being completed, the Senate return to its routine of business.
The Senate divided. [16:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That—
(a) the Senate notes that:
(i) during Question Time today, Prime Minister Albanese said 'what the Senate can do with the support of the Liberals and the Greens is to vote for these tax cuts and vote for them today', and
(ii) the Government has not put forward a proposal to enable the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 are passed today; and
(b) today, the hours of meeting be midday till adjournment and the routine of business from 7.30 pm be consideration of the bills;
(c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills only; and
(d) following consideration of the bills being completed, the Senate return to its routine of business.
The Senate divided. [16:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [16:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That on Thursday, 29 February 2024, at 3.30 pm, the order of the day proposing the disallowance of instruments made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 be called on and considered for not longer than 30 minutes, after which the question be put.
That—
(a) on Thursday, 29 February 2024, the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 10.10 am till the ringing of the bells, to enable senators to attend an address by His Excellency Ferdinand Marcos Jr, President of the Republic of the Philippines; and
(b) this order only apply following the reporting of a message from the House of Representatives inviting senators to attend a meeting of that House for the purposes of the address.
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 , the following proposed works be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:
Department of Finance—Proposed fit-out of new Commonwealth Parliament offices, Perth, Western Australia.
Parks Australia—Mutitjulu essential services project.
I table statements in relation to the works.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024
Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024
Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 , and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
There's probably not a more pressing issue in rural areas of our country than the takeover of land by industrialised renewable energy investments.
The proponents of these large-scale solar and wind projects are running roughshod over people's property rights and their right to amenity in their local community all the while our natural landscapes are being destroyed in the futile attempt by this government to reduce our carbon emissions to net zero.
The fundamental problem with this so-called environmental move to renewable energy is that it's not good for the environment.
Solar and wind energy is not good for the environment because of the basic principle that it takes up too much of our environment. It takes up so much of our land to produce such small amounts of power. If we want to go to 82 per cent renewables, as the government does, we're going to need an enormous area of land to be covered with solar, wind and potentially batteries, and even more land for solar and wind if we want to move to hydrogen.
Why are we having this massive impact on our natural environment? There's a recent study by Net Zero Australia that estimated we would need an area the size of half of Victoria covered in solar and wind to meet our net zero emissions target—half of Victoria!
When will we have the debate about whether this is what we should do to our natural landscape? Why would we destroy the environment in a futile attempt to protect it? Putting aside the fact that we account for only a small amount of carbon emissions, we're going to destroy our natural environment. If we do achieve our target and convince other countries to cut emissions at the same time—even if all that is done—what for? We will have lost our kingdom for a horse. We will have lost this beautiful country's natural landscapes, which will be destroyed totally unnecessarily.
We can't just throw out the need to protect our environment because we're going to save the world from global warming by ourselves. While the rest of the world ignores their commitments at the Paris Accord, we're willing to go forward trashing our environment to benefit, what is mostly, foreign renewable energy companies.
In Central Queensland alone there are 27 wind and solar projects currently proposed or being built with very little oversight.
A number of these wind projects will require the top of mountains being cut off to install the wind turbines. Many have you will have seen the vision of the Kaban wind project in Far North Queensland. Next to it the wilderness is being cleared for the Chalumbin wind farm—four times bigger than Kaban.
Where are the advocates for the Magnificent Brood Frog and the Greater Glider—now that their habitats are being destroyed. And let's not forget that the Kaban and Chalumbin sites are abutting the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area.
It's an absolute environmental outrage. It is vandalism on an industrial scale that these projects, with government approval and often government funding, can come along and just knock off the tops of mountains to put 200 x 200 square metre pads for wind turbines.
The grand irony of all this, is that while these projects get marginal scrutiny, if a farmer were to take the same action in the same areas, they'd fall foul of the regulations that were designed to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
For decades, farmers have been told they can't cut down a tree or change their land use in these areas because that would cause more sediment run-off to go into the rivers and then out to the Great Barrier Reef. How is it that an Australian farmer, an Australian landowner, basically can't really move one bit of dirt on their property without approval by the Greens and the government, and yet a foreign investor can come in and knock the tops off mountains onto the sides of hills and just walk away?
Where are the assessments of this? I've looked through lots of environmental impact statements on this, and there are very inadequate assessments of the wider impacts compared to what you typically must do now regarding farming and mining. We're destroying our local habitats in this country, and we are removing the wonderful natural landscapes we have all in some futile attempt to respond to climate change. The worst thing here is that no-one is pausing to look at what the cumulative impacts will be.
Farmers are being accused of being criminals, but these large investors can just walk in and destroy our local environment, with no questions asked.
There must be a greater spotlight put on these practices because people are making decisions out of complete ignorance. They do not know what's going on the ground, and it will be too late when we wake up in 10 or 20 years and vast swathes of our wonderful, rural, green landscapes have been turned into industrial wastelands. People on the ground deserve this sort of oversight today. It should have been done yesterday, before we made some of these decisions, but it needs to be done as soon as possible.
This issue has rapidly become one of the major issues in regional Australia. I can't go anywhere on the eastern seaboard without people coming up and asking for help in stopping these projects from destroying their towns.
And this problem is only going to get worse because the land usage required by large-scale solar and wind projects is significantly larger than that of a coal mine, and even more of an impact than that of a uranium mine and nuclear power plant.
Because not only do we have the wind and solar factories themselves, there's the mines for all the materials that are needed for these, and then there's also the need for storage to make up for when the weather isn't producing any energy. This means either more land being used through pumped hydro, destroying more homes and habitats, or battery storage requiring lithium mines.
We need a better balance in this debate. If we want to reduce our carbon emissions, let's do so in a way which doesn't destroy our natural environment—which is happening right across Australia.
I ask the people in our cities who are listening to this, please listen to the greatest custodians of our environment in our country: our farmers. They live in the natural environment and understand what is happening on their farms. It may seem like renewable energy is clean and green when you see the advertisements on TV showing these wind and solar farms looking fantastic, but out on the ground, on the front lines, the reality is coming true. Please listen to our nation's farmers before it's too late and we destroy our natural environment.
This bill serves to ensure that we're not needlessly destroying our beautiful environment by making sure that these projects are properly assessed under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1997 ('EPBC Act').
This bill will ensure that every large-scale solar and wind project will require approval under the EPBC Act to go ahead.
I want to recognise and acknowledge all the people who travelled to Canberra over the past days to get their voices heard about the recklessness of this rush to renewables.
Regional communities are being divided by these projects. Landholders who own neighbouring properties are left worrying about their own way of life, and about their ability to continue generations of farming.
By rushing this transition, all we're doing is furthering the risk to our environment in a moral crusade to try and save the world from carbon emissions.
This is the double-edged sword of these net zero policies. To save the world we need to destroy our environment. Any average observer should be able to see that this makes no sense.
Our natural environment is at risk from these massive renewable projects, and we as a parliament have an imperative to do something about it.
I commend this Bill to you.
Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to require the Transport Minister to makes rules prescribing carriers' obligations, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 addresses the growing concerns surrounding passenger protections and poor performance of participants within the Australian aviation sector. This private senators' bill put forward by the Coalition represents a necessary step forward in enhancing the rights and protections of airline passengers across Australia.
The Australian aviation industry serves as a vital lifeline, connecting our vast country and fostering economic growth and social cohesion. However, in recent years, there has been a concerning rise in the frequency of delays and cancellations, causing considerable inconvenience and frustration for passengers. It is imperative that the Australian Government take tangible steps to address these issues and ensure that passengers are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve when traveling by air.
The Airline Passenger Protection (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 seeks to achieve this objective through a comprehensive set of measures designed to protect passengers' rights and interests in situations where delays, cancellations, or denial of boarding occur. The Bill would require the Transport Minister to make rules which aim to safeguard passengers' rights and ensure a minimum standard of service across all carriers, foreign and domestic.
In the dynamic landscape of the Australian airline industry, competition from major airlines, both domestically and internationally, plays a pivotal role in shaping the customer experience. With a mix of established carriers and low-cost airlines vying for market share, passengers should benefit from a diverse range of options and pricing.
Every Australian who travels across the country knows how much our aviation market needs greater competition—and the lower prices and higher standards that accompany it.
The latest ACCC airline monitoring report confirms once again that the sector is not where it should be, as does that fact complaints to the ACCC concerning aviation have risen by nearly 200% since 2018. With around 93% of market share, Qantas and Virgin have a tighter grip on domestic air travel than another notable duopoly—Coles and Woolworths—have on the supermarket industry.
Governments would generally rather industry provide suitable consumer protections without the need for regulatory intervention. Unfortunately, sustained poor performance has necessitated this intervention.
The reality is that airlines have been held largely unaccountable for their poor performance because Australian consumers have not had the option of choosing other operators. While Australia works to foster competition in the sector, the minimum standards that would be set under this Bill provide travellers with the consumer protections they so clearly need.
The Bill requires the Minister for Transport to establish an aviation code of conduct within 12 months, after consultation with relevant stakeholders. The rules would ensure that airlines adhere to specific standards of service and accountability towards their passengers. By establishing clear guidelines for airlines, the Coalition aims to promote transparency and accountability in the industry, ultimately leading to improved passenger experiences.
Key provisions of the rules required by the Bill include:
1. Protection of minors: Recognising the vulnerability of minors, the Bill would require the Transport Minister to make rules which mandates that minors under the age of 14 are seated next to their guardian at no extra cost. This provision is crucial for ensuring the safety and well-being of young passengers and providing peace of mind to families and caregivers.
2. Minimum standards of treatment: The Bill would require the Transport Minister to make rules which establish minimum standards of treatment for passengers who experience delays, cancellations, or denial of boarding. These standards are intended to ensure that passengers are provided with essential amenities such as food, water, and accommodation during such disruptions, thereby mitigating the inconvenience and discomfort experienced by passengers and providing passengers with protections and recourse in the event of disruptions. The minimum standards may also set compensation for significant delays, cancellations or denial of boarding.
3. Compensation for lost or damaged baggage: In cases of lost or damaged baggage, the Bill would require the Minister to make rules which introduce provisions for passengers to seek compensation. It is unacceptable for passengers to suffer financial losses due to mishandling of their baggage by airlines. Therefore, this bill establishes a framework for passengers to seek compensation for the loss or damage of their baggage, thereby holding airlines accountable for their actions.
4. Provide refunds in a timely manner: The rules would set out a carrier's obligation to provide refunds, and any other compensation owed, in a timely manner.
5. Ground delays: in the case of tarmac delays over 3 hours, the Bill requires rules for carriers including the obligation to provide timely information and assistance to passengers, as well as the minimum standards of treatment of passengers that the carrier is required to meet. This closes any loophole that a carrier could board a flight to avoid penalties, knowing the aircraft cannot depart within a specified time.
6. Information: The carrier will be required to provide timely information, in language that is simple, clear and concise. This includes any information regarding recourse against the carrier under the carriers obligations.
7. Aviation code of conduct: The requirement to establish an airline code of conduct is in direct response to the ongoing concerns by the ACCC and other consumer advocacy groups regarding carriers' pricing strategies, inconsistent fare types, and the experiences of third-party purchasers of airfares. The purpose of the code is to ensure the fair and proper treatment of passengers and that passengers reach their intended destination as booked. The code will also require the Government to clearly define a consistent definition of a ticket of carriage to apply to all tickets of carriage issued by carriers, including the minimum rights which passengers and third parties are guaranteed when they purchase a ticket of carriage from a carrier.
As Australia navigates its regulatory framework for passenger protections, there is an opportunity to learn from the experiences and best practices of jurisdictions such as the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Canada.
By adopting robust rules that prioritise passengers' rights and ensure consistent standards of treatment across all airlines, Australia can enhance the customer experience, bolstering consumer confidence in the aviation sector. Moreover, a proactive approach to passenger protections can contribute to a more competitive, resilient and productive industry, where airlines are incentivised to prioritise customer satisfaction and deliver high-quality services, ultimately benefiting passengers and the broader economy alike.
The Airline Passenger Protection (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 represents a significant opportunity to safeguard the rights and interests of airline passengers in Australia and enhance national productivity.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) order for the production of documents no. 374, agreed to by the Senate on 7 November 2023, relating to the Minister for Education's review of the Higher Education Loan Program and Australian Taxation Office payments system, has only been partially complied with,
(ii) the Minister for Education, in his response to the order, dated 7 December 2023, made a claim of public interest immunity in respect of certain documents on the basis that the documents relate to Cabinet deliberations, and
(iii) it is accepted that deliberations of the Executive Council and of the Cabinet should be able to be conducted in secrecy so as to preserve the freedom of deliberation of those bodies, however, this ground relates only to disclosure of deliberations;
(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Education, noting that documents prepared for the dominant purpose of briefing a minister on a Cabinet submission are not documents which would disclose the actual deliberations of Cabinet; and
(c) requires the Minister representing the Minster for Education to fully comply with the order by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 28 February 2024.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 28 February 2024, the email and attached document 'operational plan in the event of a loss' sent on 3 November 2023 from the acting First Assistant Secretary Immigration Policy, Integrity and Assurance to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs' offices in relation to the NZYQ case.
The Senate divided. [16:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that in response to orders relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework (orders nos 229, 253 and 315) ministers have:
(i) provided relevant documents,
(ii) advised that documents do not exist,
(iii) sought additional time to process or review documents, or
(iv) raised a public interest immunity claim on the established ground that release of documents would be detrimental to relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories;
(b) notes that on 16 October 2023 the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme complied with the order of 14 September 2023 which required him to provide an explanation to the Senate in relation to these matters;
(c) notes that on 8 February 2024 the Minster representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme tabled the report of the Independent National Disability Insurance Scheme review; and
(d) resolves that Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme is satisfactorily complying with his obligations to respond to its orders and discharges him from the requirement to attend the Senate to provide an explanation on the first day of each sitting week.
The Senate divided. [16:41]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That—
(a) there be laid on the table by each chair of a Senate Legislation Committee, in respect of questions taken on notice in that committee during Budget estimates, supplementary estimates, or additional estimates hearings, a statement that provides:
(i) the number of questions taken on notice not answered at the previous round of estimates hearings by the due date set by the committee, and
(ii) an explanation of the action taken by the relevant chair to seek the answers to questions taken on notice not answered at the previous round of estimates hearings;
(b) the statement by the chair be laid on the table not later than 5 days following the due date set for the provision of answers to questions taken on notice;
(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (a); and
(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.
The Senate divided. [16:50]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that on 28 November 2023, the Senate agreed to order for production of documents no. 405, which required the tabling of:
(i) the Statement of Reasons document held by the Attorney-General's Department relating to a terrorist organisation listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps prepared in January 2023, and
(ii) the 'Nomination Form—Criminal Code' held by the Attorney-General's Department relating to a terrorist organisation listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps prepared in January 2023;
(b) notes that, on 30 November 2023, the Attorney-General made a public interest immunity claim in relation to the documents sought, stating that the production of the documents "would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security"; and
(c) orders the Minister representing the Attorney-General to provide to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on a confidential basis, by midday, Thursday, 29 February 2024, a copy of the documents that were the subject of the order agreed to on 28 November 2023.
Omit "Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on a confidential basis", substitute "Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee".
The Senate divided. [16:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [17:00]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 3 pm on Thursday, 29 February 2024, any documents, emails, or other correspondence sent by the Secretary of the Department of Finance under the Digital Transformation Agency's Enhanced Notification Process to applicable agencies over the past 6 months.
Omit "3 pm on Thursday, 29 February", substitute "10 am on Monday, 18 March".
That there be laid on the table by the President of the Senate, by no later than 4.30pm on Wednesday, 28 February 2024, the draft report on the accessibility of Australian Parliament House that was prepared by the Australian Network on Disability and given to the Department of Parliamentary Services on Friday, 22 December 2023.
The Senate divided. [17:05]
(The President—Senator Lines)
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 , and for related purposes.Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 .
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill enables the manufacturing division of the CFMEU, which includes the Textile, Clothing & Footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers, to hold a secret ballot to demerge from the Construction Forestry & Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU).
Just two weeks ago, the amendments in this bill were moved as amendments to the Government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023.
Just two weeks ago, the Greens and the government voted together to block the amendment and deprive these union workers of the opportunity to have a say in their future.
The Textile Clothing Footwear sector (TCF Sector) is currently part of the CFMEU.
The TCF Sector is the part of the CFMEU with the greatest number of women.
Many of these women are from non-English speaking backgrounds.
Many of them have had first-hand experience of exploitation, underpayment and unsafe conditions.
After the merger the TCF Sector moved into the CFMEU's offices.
One of the union secretaries told The Age newspaper about the first meeting with the CFMEU:
"It was a male-dominated space," she recalled.
But the Textile Clothing Footwear Union TCFU had merged with the CFMEU and that also meant sharing office space.
The Union rep told the paper that:
"Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building."
To say the CFMEU have had 'women problems' in the past in an understatement.
But I am not going to go on about that today.
Except to say that the past behaviour of the CFMEU and indeed the Builders Labourers Federation—the BLF—before that—really did and do give unions a bad name.
That's a shame, not just a shame about the behaviour—but a shame that is so often overshadows the good things the union movement has achieved for our country.
The first unions were formed by free workers—that is—not convicts—in Sydney and Hobart in the 1820s.
The earliest unions in Tasmania were organised by craft workers in the late 1820s.
Print workers', tailors', carpenters', bootmakers' and bakers' unions followed in the 1830s.
Early trade unions were working people who came together to support each other during illness, death and unemployment.
On 21 April 1856, stonemasons in Melbourne walked off the job in protest over their employers' refusal to accept their demands for reduced working hours.
It led to Australia becoming the first country in the world to have a mandated 8 hour work day.
But this only applied to a minority of workers—mainly those in the building trade.
Women became active in the union movement in the 1870s and often formed their own unions.
Most workers, including women and children, generally worked longer hours for less pay.
Working people and their unions kept fighting and, in 1916, the Eight Hours Act was passed in Victoria and New South Wales.
It would take another 32 years for the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to approve a 40-hour, five-day working week for all Australians.
But in the nineteenth century—Australia was a male-dominated society
Women weren't allowed to vote.
There were Jobs for the blokes—not so many for the sheilas.
Even if women could get a job—they weren't welcome in most workplaces.
Not that they didn't work at home—doing all the domestic stuff—but of course women still don't get paid for that!
Australia's first union for women, the Tailoresses' Association of Melbourne, was founded in 1882.
A year before Australia's first female student graduated from the University of Melbourne.
In 1883 these ladies went on strike, the Tailoresses' strike of 1883, to protest a reduction of wages and an end to 'sweatshop' hours.
These 200 brave women going out on strike was described by commentators at the time as being 'extraordinary' and 'sensational'.
Their strike resulted in changes to their working conditions—And it got the attention of a Royal Commission which ultimately led to the factory reform act.
The fight for women's working rights continued and kicked up a notch after WW2 when women took over jobs done by men who were now fighting overseas.
The ladies got a shock when they opened their pay packet and found it was less than the blokes.
The Victorian Trades Hall established a subcommittee for equal pay in 1943, taking up the long-standing demands of female-only unions.
Once the war ended, many women wanted to keep their jobs, and keep the pay they had fought for—the unions had to campaign for this issue well into the 1950s.
It wasn't until 1972 that women were granted equal pay for work of equal value.
Trade unions in the late 70s and early 80s were getting a bad reputation—and were often in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
The Builders Labourers Federation was headed up by a very corrupt bloke called Norm Gallagher.
The unlawfulness of the BLF's relentless industry-wide intimidation, violence, extortion, sabotage and financially-damaging stoppages is widely documented.
Following a Royal Commission into the BLF's business affairs—the union was deregistered and Gallagher was convicted—amongst other things—of obtaining building materials to build himself a beach house!
While the bad boys of the Union movement did their best to overshadow the good parts of the union movement—the union movement itself was changing.
Yes, union membership was falling—not helped by Norm and his mates—but the unions that survived and grew were often dominated by women.
Nurses, teacher, aged care workers, textile workers, footwear workers—the modern Australian Unionist is more likely to be a woman.
According to the last census women make up a greater proportion of trade union membership (54%) than men (46%).
And yet and yet—a union mainly made up of women isn't allowed a secret ballot to take charge of their own union.
Why does it need to be secret—that's a good question.
And a depressing answer.
It's because they have been intimidated in the past.
The CFMEU doesn't want to let them go because they want their money.
So, let's review—a union with thousands of women, many of them from non-English speaking backgrounds, wants to be able to have a secret ballot to leave the CFMEU and take control themselves.
Who in here could in all conscience vote against these women?
I would like all of the Senators in here to go home and think deeply about this tonight.
If your party is telling you to vote against this amendment, I want you to think about how you will feel about betraying these women?
All the passionate speeches I have heard in this place about domestic violence.
All the speeches about how women should be empowered to take control of their own lives.
Did you mean them?
Will you stand by your words?
Will you stand by your principles?
Will you stand up for these women?
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, by no later than 9:30 am on Wednesday, 28 February 2024, the following documents relating to the Aged Care Taskforce:
(a) the final report from the Aged Care Taskforce that was provided to the Government prior to Christmas 2023; and
(b) the research conducted by Kantar Public on public understanding and perception of co-contributions in aged care, as referenced in the communique from the 22 November 2023 meeting.
That there be laid on the table by the Department of Health and Aged Care, by no later than midday on Thursday, 14 March 2024:
(a) all relevant agreements or other documentation evidencing the chain of title and licensing rights associated with all intellectual property (including all pre-existing intellectual property) created and used for the Future Fit program, including the chain of title from Miles Morgan Australia's subcontractors involved in the delivery of the program;
(b) all correspondence related to the ownership of and licenses to all intellectual property created and used for the Future Fit program;
(c) all correspondence and other documentation describing the intellectual property created for the Future Fit program, and including pre-existing intellectual property used in the Future Fit program, and including but not limited to operating models, architectures and design documents;
(d) all relevant documentation and invoices evidencing acquittal of payment to Miles Morgan Australia by the Department of Health and Aged Care against each milestone, and against each intellectual property asset created as a result of the 2021 contract between Miles Morgan Australia and the Department of Health and Aged Care (provided in OPD 393), and the extension contract that ends on 9 March 2024; and
(e) all relevant documents and invoices evidencing acquittal of payments for the $2.2 million Future Fit pilot program in Whitehorse and Ballarat.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 1 pm on 28 February 2024, the full chain of correspondence in 2022 between the Department of Defence and KPMG that included the statement that a payment to KPMG would be made "in the interests of maintaining a collaborative relationship", as referred to in Anchoram Consulting's report on the 1DD Program delivered in April 2023 and released to the Senate in December 2023.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that, in his response to order for the production of documents no. 459, relating to the students with disability loadings settings review, and order for the production of documents no. 460, relating to school funding, the Minister for Education made a public interest immunity claim on the basis that complying with the orders would disclose materials which go to negotiations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories;
(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister, noting that:
(i) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would adversely impact relations between the Commonwealth and states and territories, the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and
(ii) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from the states and territories; and
(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Education to comply with the order by no later than midday on 29 February 2024.
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 August 2024:
(a) the full effects of energy transition on regional and remote Australia; and
(b) any related matters ( 26 February 2024 ).
The Senate divided. [17:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
Due to its litany of broken promises, inability to secure our borders against people smugglers, control skyrocketing immigration rates, or effectively tackle the cost-of- living crisis, the Albanese Labor Government has not upheld its responsibilities to the Australian people. Consequently, the Senate must issue a vote of no confidence in the Albanese Labor Government.
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
Due to its litany of broken promises, inability to secure our borders against people smugglers, control skyrocketing immigration rates, or effectively tackle the cost-of- living crisis, the Albanese Labor Government has not upheld its responsibilities to the Australian people. Consequently, the Senate must issue a vote of no confidence in the Albanese Labor Government.
The Senate divided. [17:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Albanese Labor Government cannot be trusted to keep Australians safe.
The mission of Operation Sovereign Borders remains the same today as it was when it was established in 2013: protect Australia's borders, combat people smuggling in our region, and importantly, prevent people from risking their lives at sea.
Any alternate narrative will be exploited by criminal people smugglers to deceive potential irregular immigrants and convince them to risk their lives and travel to Australia by boat.
Border Force funding is currently the highest it's been since its establishment in 2015 and in the last year the ABF has received additional funding totalling hundreds of millions of dollars to support maritime and land-based operations.
The mission of Operation Sovereign Borders remains the same today as it was when it was established in 2013.
Any alternative narrative will be exploited by criminal people smugglers to deceive potential irregular immigrants and convince them to risk their lives and travel to Australia by boat.
As I have said previously, words matter. ASIO has seen direct connections between inflamed language and inflamed community tensions.
Australian Government Response to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment report:
Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 [Provisions]
February 2024
Overview
The Australian Government believes in the fundamental right of all people in Australia to feel safe in their homes and in their workplaces. The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Act 2022 (Amendment Act) was an important step
towards making sure that no employee is forced to make a choice between earning a wage and protecting the safety of themselves and their family.
The Amendment Act was the first parliamentary action of the Hon Tony Burke MP, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. This recognised the need to take quick action towards the Government's goal to end gender-based violence in Australia, set out by the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-32.
The Government recognises the importance of ensuring that this leave entitlement operates effectively for employers as well as employees who are experiencing family and domestic violence. This is why the Government has committed to a statutory independent review of the operation of the Amendment Act to commence as soon as is practicable from
February 2024.
Committee Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Australian Government commission an independent review of the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 (bill) to be undertaken 18 months after the commencement of Schedule 1. The committee further recommends that the review assess the adequacy of support and guidance available to business to assist with implementation of the bill.
Response: Agreed in-principle.
During parliamentary debate, the Government agreed to amendments to the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 requiring the Minister to commission an independent review of the operation of the paid family and domestic violence leave provisions.
The review must commence as soon as practicable 12 months from the commencement of Schedule 1 of the Amendment Act on 1 February 2023. In accordance with the
Amendment Act, it must consider:
The review must be provided as a written report to the Minister within 3 months of commencement of the review, and be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days from the report being given to the Minister.
The Government intends that the review will also consider the adequacy of support and guidance available to business to assist with implementation of the legislation, as recommended by the Committee.
Committee Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.
Response: Agreed.
The Senate passed the legislation on 26 October 2022 and it passed both Houses of
Parliament on 27 October 2022. The Amendment Act received Royal Assent on
9 November 2022.
Coalition Senators' Recommendation 1
The Coalition Senators recommend:
Response: Noted.
In relation to the recommendations around the reporting obligations for employers and perpetrators not being able to access family and domestic violence leave, the Government's position was outlined during parliamentary debate (see Senate Hansard, 26 October 2022, pages 1565 and 1567-68). The Government made clear that the legislation does not impose any reporting obligations on employers and that an employee will only be able to access the leave if they are experiencing family and domestic violence.
As detailed in response to Committee Recommendation 1, the Amendment Act requires an independent review of the operation of the provisions be conducted. This review will provide Government with the opportunity to consider qualitative and quantitative research on the operation of the Amendment Act to understand the impact of the entitlement, including on small businesses and sole traders.
The Government recognises the importance of ensuring small business are equipped to understand and administer the paid family and domestic violence leave entitlement sensitively and lawfully. The Small Business Assistance package announced in the 2022-23 Budget provides $3.4 million over 4 years to deliver a range of holistic supports to help small businesses implement paid family and domestic violence leave. This funding supports:
practicable from 1 February 2024, which will assess support to small business and examine the effectiveness and scope of the legislation.
Measures now in place to support small business implement the leave entitlement include:
entitlement sensitively and lawfully, and competently manage associated issues. The website, www.10dayspaidFDVleave.com, was developed in partnership with small business representatives and family and domestic violence sector experts.
Together, these measures ensure small business can access the right advice at the right time to provide support to their employees experiencing family and domestic violence.
Australian Greens Senators' Recommendation 1
That any financial support package provided by the government be contingent on recipient businesses offering paid FDV leave to employees at the earliest possible opportunity.
Response: Noted.
The Government recognises that small businesses may need extra support to implement the entitlement as they often have more limited resources and may not have access to payroll and human resources expertise. To reflect this, the paid family and domestic violence leave entitlement did not commence for employees employed by small businesses until
1 August 2023, 6 months later than the commencement date for employees employed by non-small business employers.
The Small Business Assistance package announced in the 2022-23 Budget provided $3.4 million to provide support measures to small business, as outlined above. This measure does not include delivery of funding directly to small businesses implementing the new leave entitlement, but rather provides support to ensure they have guidance and relevant materials to help them implement the entitlement.
Australian Greens Senators' Recommendation 2
That the 18 month review of the Bill consider the definition of family and domestic violence in the Fair Work Act 2009 in the context of harmonisation initiatives, and consider whether to expand leave entitlements to family, domestic and sexual violence.
Response: Noted.
The review of the amendments made by the Amendment Act will be independent of government and capable of considering the definition of family and domestic violence for the purposes of the leave entitlement, including whether the definition should be revised.
The Government notes that the Fair Work Act 2009 contains a definition of family and domestic violence in subsection 106B(2) that applies for the purposes of the Act, including an employee's entitlement to paid family and domestic violence leave. The Government has committed to progressing a national definition of family and domestic violence that includes coercive control. A national definition of family and domestic violence will help inform a common understanding of family and domestic violence nationally and across jurisdictions.
Progression of a national definition requires a coordinated approach from Commonwealth, state and territory governments and will progress separately to the statutory independent review of the Amendment Act.
Australian Greens Senators' Recommendation 3
That resources developed by the Fair Work Ombudsman to support implementation of the Bill provide clear guidance to employers regarding evidentiary requirements, including:
Response: Noted.
As part of the Small Business Assistance package announced in the 2022-23 Budget, the Government provided the Fair Work Ombudsman with $2.2 million over 4 years to update its workplace relations advice and education tools and resource its advice and education channels.
The Fair Work Ombudsman website, www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/family-and-domestic-violence-leave, has free information and resources available now on evidentiary requirements for the new entitlement. This includes:
The Fair Work Ombudsman also updated its small business ' Employer Guide to Family and Domestic Violence ' ahead of the extension of the entitlement to employees of small businesses from 1 August 2023. The guide promotes best practice by helping employers to understand their responsibilities to employees experiencing family or domestic
violence. The guide also includes information on how to support employees experiencing family or domestic violence, manage family and domestic violence issues in the
workplace, and develop a workplace response to family and domestic violence.
The Fair Work Ombudsman has also developed information in multiple languages. Australian Greens Senators' Recommendations 4 and 5
4. That s106B be amended to:
Response: Noted.
See response to Australian Greens recommendation 5 below.
5. That the Bill be amended to provide an entitlement for unpaid FDV leave where employees have exhausted their annual 10 days of paid leave. This could be modelled on the Western Australian Government provisions, or explicitly provide for at least 4 additional days of unpaid leave. Employers may also, at their discretion, provide additional paid FDV leave, in advance or by agreement.
Response: Noted.
Parliament considered elements of these recommendations by way of non-Government amendments moved by the Australian Greens in the Senate (see Senate Hansard, 26 October 2022, pages 1560 and 1665). The amendments were not agreed to by the Senate.
In relation to the proposed amendments to s 106B, the Government recognises the policy concerns underlying the recommendation, but considers the existing language of the provision is sufficiently clear to address them, as set out in the Government's contribution to the parliamentary debate.
The Government's priority for the Amendment Act was to ensure that no-one should have to choose between their pay and safety. The Amendment Act achieves this objective and is world-leading in terms of scope and entitlements for paid family and domestic violence leave. The Amendment Act builds in a requirement for an independent review of the legislation as soon as is practicable 12 months after commencement of the reforms.
The independent review will provide a critical opportunity to consider the effectiveness and scope of the legislation and the impact it has had on people experiencing family and domestic violence.
Australian Greens Senators' Recommendation 6
That the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended to include 'experiencing family and domestic violence' and requesting FDV leave as protected characteristics under s.35(1) [sic].
That the 18 month review examine any evidence of gender discrimination resulting from the Bill and consider whether family and domestic violence should be a protected attribute under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).
Response: Noted.
The Government notes that an employee's access to paid family and domestic violence leave is already protected under the Fair Work Act 2009 . The general protections provision in section 340 of theFair Work Act 2009 prohibits a person taking adverse action against another person because they have a workplace right, whether or not they seek to exercise this right. A person has a workplace right if they are entitled to a benefit under a workplace law, which includes the new paid family and domestic violence leave entitlement.
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2023 (Closing Loopholes Act) passed Parliament on 7 December 2023. The Closing Loopholes Act amended theFair Work Act 2009 to strengthen existing workplace protections against discrimination for employees who have been, or continue to be, subjected to family and domestic violence, including by:
While the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 does not directly prohibit discrimination on the grounds of someone experiencing family and domestic violence, the Government notes the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission in conciliating human rights and discrimination complaints and promoting Australians' rights and freedoms. The Government also notes the current work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is considering Australia's human rights and anti-discrimination framework.
Australian Greens Senators' Recommendation 7
That the Government ensure that the Bill is part of a broad suite of reforms to implement the new National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. At a minimum, this should include:
Response: Partially agree.
Ending violence against women and children is a national priority. Paid family and domestic violence leave joins the range of tools available to address violence against women and children. The Government acknowledges the resistance and resilience of victim-survivors of family and domestic violence and is committed to providing the national leadership and investment needed to address family and domestic violence.
This is demonstrated through the Government's investment of $2.3 billion to support the implementation of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022- 2032 since October 2022. This investment will guide efforts and actions over the next decade towards the vision of ending gender-based violence in one generation.
Building on the $1.7 billion in the October 2022-23 Budget, the Government has invested a further $589.3 million in the 2023-24 Budget to support the National Plan including:
31 January 2025, which will provide much needed support for individuals leaving violent relationships
Key measures in the October 2022-23 Budget included:
The Government invested $72.6 million over 2020-21 to 2024-25 in the program.
Housing
The Government is supporting the delivery of more social and affordable housing through its $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF). The HAFF will fund 30,000 new social and affordable housing properties. 4,000 of those social housing dwellings will be allocated for women and children experiencing family and domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness. In addition to other acute housing needs, the HAFF will also fund $100 million in the first 5 years for crisis and transitional housing options for women and children experiencing family and domestic violence and older women who are at risk of homelessness.
The Government has funded the Keeping Women Safe in their Homes (KWSITH) program since 2015-16. In the October 2022-23 Budget, a further $41.7 million was allocated to continue KWSITH to 2026-27. The KWSITH program supports women and their children to stay in their own home, or a home of their choice, where it is safe and appropriate to do so, through a range of safety responses such as risk assessments, safety planning, home security audits and upgrades. The KWSITH program supports greater housing stability by providing women with an alternative to homeless shelters and emergency accommodation, and reduces some strain on emergency accommodation providers.
National Partnership on Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Responses (FDSV National Partnership)
Investment of $159.0 million over 2 years announced in the 2023-24 Budget builds on the $270.7 million provided over 2 years from 2021-22 under the FDSV National Partnership, and the $169.4 million committed in the October 2022-23 Budget for 500 workers and innovative perpetrator response initiatives. Under the FDSV National Partnership, funding is conditional on contributions from states, in recognition that responding to violence is a shared responsibility of all Australian governments and that states have primary
responsibility for frontline services, and to ensure that critical services are able to meet demand. States are responsible for distributing the funding under the FDSV National Partnership to services based on needs in their jurisdictions.
Social security
The National Plan notes that Australia's social security system supports victims and survivors to not only leave a violent relationship, but also to establish a life free from violence. Examples of support include the Crisis Payment, Rent Assistance, and higher single rates of social security payments. The Government has committed to review the adequacy of income support payments at each Budget.
Services Australia provides assistance and support to victim-survivors guided by the Agency's Family and Domestic Violence Strategy. To reinforce this commitment, a range of strategies have been implemented to ensure the safety of customers and their families, including providing staff with regular training and guidance materials to help identify when customers may be experiencing violence. Training and guidance materials are regularly reviewed to ensure they are up to date and appropriate.
Child Support
As part of the 2023-24 Budget, the Government has committed $5.1 million to implement the Government's response to key Child Support recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System including:
Income support payments
As part of the 2023-24 Budget, the Government delivered a $14.6 billion cost of living package, which includes the following measures which increased income support payments:
The new rates commenced on 20 September 2023, further indexation of eligible payment rates also took place as usual on 20 September 2023.
Escaping Violence Payment (EVP)
Economic abuse involves control, exploitation or sabotage of finances which affects a person's ability to obtain, use, or maintain economic resources, threatening their economic security and potential for independence. The EVP trial provides support packages of up to $5,000 to eligible individuals to establish a home free from violence. The EVP trial reduces the financial barriers for individuals experiencing violence to leave an abusive relationship. An extension of the trial until the end of January 2025 was announced in the 2023-24 Budget. The trial is being independently evaluated and this will provide the Government with an evidence base to consider the future of the program.
Right to request flexible working arrangements
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 has strengthened the right to request flexible working arrangements in the National Employment Standards. These amendments commenced on 6 June 2023.
The right to request flexible working arrangements has been expanded to employees who are pregnant as well as situations where an employee, or a member of their immediate family or household, experiences family and domestic violence. This amendment aligns the coverage of family violence with the entitlement to paid family and domestic violence leave in the National Employment Standards.
The amendments make the right to request flexible working arrangements an enforceable right and allow the Fair Work Commission to deal with disputes about requests, including by arbitration. However, arbitration is a last resort and the Commission must attempt conciliation or mediation before arbitration unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Employers may only refuse a request on reasonable business grounds.
There is also a fair and transparent process for responding to requests for flexible working arrangements, based on the Commission's model term for flexible working arrangements in modern awards.
Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report: Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 [Provisions]
OCTOBER 2023
On 29 March 2023, the Government introduced the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 (the Bill) into the House of Representatives. The Bill passed both Houses of Parliament on 19 October 2023.
The Bill would amend the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act) to enhance the ability of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, and the Family Court of Western Australia (the federal family law courts), to obtain family violence, child abuse and neglect risk information from State and Territory police, child protection and firearms agencies. In amending the Act, the Bill gives effect to key aspects of theNational Strategic Framework for Information Sharing between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection S ystems (National Framework).
On 11 May 2023, the Bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (the Committee) for inquiry. The Committee tabled their report into the Bill on 14 June 2023. The Committee made two substantive recommendations, and recommended that subject to these, the Senate pass the Bill.
The Government would like to thank the Committee for its examination of the Bill. The Government has accepted each of the substantive recommendations from the Committee and remains committed to enhancing information sharing between the federal family law system, and State and Territory child protection and family violence systems.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department commits to developing regulations in support of proposed Subdivision DA of Division 8 of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 in consultation with relevant stakeholders.
Response: Agreed
The Government is committed to ensuring the legislative provisions which support the establishment of enhanced information sharing are developed in consultation with key stakeholders. The National Framework, and the Bill which implements key aspects of the National Framework, were both developed in close consultation with affected State and Territory agencies, the federal family law courts, and peak national bodies representing women's and children's safety, the legal assistance sector, and the legal profession.
Initial consultation on the National Framework and the Bill was then used in developing the initial drafting of the Information Sharing Safeguards to be included in amendments to the Family Law Regulations 1984 (the Regulations). The explanatory memorandum to the Bill sets out the proposed minimum standards to be included in the Regulations.
The Attorney-General's Department subsequently conducted a targeted exposure draft consultation process on the proposed Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Regulations 2023 between 14 September 2023 and 11 October 2023. Consistent with consultations on the Bill, this targeted process included affected State and Territory agencies, the federal family law courts, and peak national bodies representing women's and children's safety, the legal assistance sector, and the legal profession.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 is amended to include a review of the operation of the Act no later than three years after its enactment and in conjunction with a review of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023.
Response: Agreed
The Government agrees to Recommendation 2 of the Committee. The Bill as passed on 19 October 2023 included a Government amendment which provides that the Minister must commission a second review of provisions, and supporting amendments to the Regulations, as soon as practicable after 3 years following commencement of the Bill's provisions.
The Committee's recommendation the secondary review be conducted in conjunction with a review of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 will be addressed as part of the Government's response to the Committee's Inquiry into that Bill.
Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023
That the Senate take note of the documents.
That the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2024.
That the question be now put.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024
Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024
The Senate divided. [18:50]
(The President—Senator Lines)
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that these revised tax cuts will still make economic inequality in Australia worse by:
(i) giving politicians and CEOs on incomes of more than $200,000 three times the value of tax cuts compared to the average worker,
(ii) only providing the poorest 20 per cent of society with 0.4 per cent of the share of tax cuts next financial year, compared to the wealthiest 20 per cent of society who will enjoy 50 per cent of the total value of the tax cuts,
(iii) exacerbating the gender pay gap, with 42 per cent of the tax cuts going to women and 58 per cent to men, and
(iv) starving the budget by a jaw-dropping $318 billion over the decade, removing revenue that could support people who rely on aged care services, disability support, income support and families who depend on the public education and health systems; and
(b) calls on the Government to redesign the tax cuts to not give the wealthiest in society $4,529 a year and instead redirect this largesse to expanding public services like more mental health and dental into Medicare and financial support for those earning below the tax-free threshold in this cost of living crisis".
The Senate divided. [18:55]
(The President—Senator Lines)
At the end of the motion, add ", and the bills be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 March 2024".
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment.
(1) Page 4 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2 — Indexation of income tax thresholds
Income Tax Rates Act 1986
1 Subsection 3(1)
Insert:
income tax threshold means the following amounts (subject to indexation under section 20A):
(a) the dollar amount mentioned in the definition of tax-free threshold in this subsection;
(b) each dollar amount mentioned in the table in clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers);
(c) each dollar amount mentioned in the table in clause 1 of Part II of Schedule 7 (table dealing with tax rates for non-resident taxpayers);
(d) each dollar amount mentioned in the table in clause 1 of Part III of Schedule 7 (table dealing with tax rates for working holiday makers).
2 At the end of Part II
Add:
Division 5 — Indexation of income tax thresholds
20A Indexation of income tax thresholds
Indexation
(1) On 1 July 2025 and each later 1 July (the indexation day ), each income tax threshold is replaced by the amount worked out using the following formula:
(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply for an indexation day if the indexation factor for the indexation day is 1 or less.
(3) The amount worked out under subsection (1) is to be rounded to the nearest whole dollar (rounding 50 cents upwards).
Indexation factor
(4) The indexation factor for an indexation day is the number worked out using the following formula:
Note: For index number ,reference quarter andbase quarter see subsection (8).
(5) The indexation factor is to be worked out to 3 decimal places (rounding up if the fourth decimal place is 5 or more).
Changes to CPI index reference period and publication of substituted index numbers
(6) Amounts are to be worked out under this section:
(a) using only the index numbers published in terms of the most recently published index reference period for the Consumer Price Index; and
(b) disregarding index numbers published in substitution for previously published index numbers (except where the substituted numbers are published to take account of changes in the index reference period).
Publication of income tax thresholds
(7) The Commissioner must, by notifiable instrument, publish the amounts worked out under subsection (1) for an indexation day as soon as practicable before the indexation day.
Definitions
(8) In this section:
base quarter means the last March quarter before the reference quarter.
index number , for a quarter, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number (being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities) published by the Australian Statistician for that quarter.
March quarter means a period of 3 months starting on 1 January.
reference quarter means the last March quarter before the indexation day.
_____
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (1)
Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends a bill which imposes taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation.
The amendment should therefore be moved as a request.
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendment (1)
As this is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any Senate amendment to the bill must be moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (table), omit the table, substitute:
Note: The above table will be repealed on 1 July 2026 by Schedule 2 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024 .
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (table), omit the table, substitute:
Note: The above table will be repealed on 1 July 2026 by Schedule 2 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024 .
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (table), omit the table, substitute:
Note: The above table will be repealed on 1 July 2026 by Schedule 2 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Act 2024 .
(5) Page 4 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2 — Repeals on 1 July 2026
Income Tax Rates Act 1986
1 Subsection 3(1) (definition of third resident personal tax rate )
Repeal the definition.
2 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers for the 2024-25 or 2025-26 year of income)
Repeal the table (including the note).
3 Clause 1 of Part II of Schedule 7 (table dealing with tax rates for non-resident taxpayers for the 2024-25 or 2025-26 year of income)
Repeal the table (including the note).
4 Clause 1 of Part III of Schedule 7 (table dealing with tax rates for working holiday makers for the 2024-25 or 2025-26 year of income)
Repeal the table (including the note).
5 Repealed law continues for relevant years of income
(1) Despite the repeal of a table by this Schedule, that table continues to apply, in relation to assessments for a year of income mentioned in the table's heading, as if that repeal had not happened.
(2) Despite the repeal of the definition of third resident personal tax rate in subsection 3(1) of theIncome Tax Rates Act 1986 made by this Schedule, that definition continues to apply, in relation to assessments for the 2024-25 and 2025-26 years of income, as if that repeal had not happened.
______
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (1) to (5)
Amendments (1) to (5) are framed as requests because they are to a bill which imposes taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation.
These amendments should therefore be moved as requests.
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (1) to (5)
As this is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any Senate amendment to the bill must be moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.
That these bills be now read a third time.
Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023
I hope this message finds you well. I write to express my grave concern about the increased experience of antisemitism for children in our schools. I write as both a teacher and a concerned parent of … children who have all experienced negative sentiment while attending school.
The reported increased incidents of antisemitism are extremely distressing and pose a significant threat to individuals. It is essential for our leaders to address this issue head-on, implement measures to curb antisemitic behaviour and foster an environment that promotes tolerance and understanding. My … children all now have stories to share of victimisation in the playground, hurtful remarks, labels and threats. This was unimaginable in Brisbane for our family prior to 7 October.
We informed the school but are still unclear how this was dealt with from their end. I have needed to manage school refusal from my children due to their feelings of unsafety, while feeling a knot in my stomach with worry about if they are indeed safe if we do send them? We felt compelled to make the difficult decision to move my son to a private school to ensure that he feels safer each day.
Late last year, promotional material shared by local members of the Greens party was targeted at children and teachers to participate in a … rally. I was deeply concerned to see children being swept up in a one-sided political agenda which will only incite more one-sidedness and hate along with misunderstandings. The flyer also contained an image of Israel superimposed with the Palestinian flag which is representative of a call for the removal of Israel and its people from the map. This is deeply worrying and unsettling in the context of being directed towards children. These images in our community along with swastikas are clear messages of hate and are impacting on the wellbeing and safety of our children. I wrote to our local Greens member … in November—
to address my grave concerns for my children's safety but still await a reply.
I urge you again to take a proactive stance against antisemitism in our schools and in any form of political marketing targeted at children and trust that, with your influence, we can collectively work towards creating a community that is safe, inclusive, and free from the shadows of antisemitism.
Our poll, consisting of a nationally representative sample of 510 employees in the Australian public school workforce, has uncovered widespread reports of antisemitism in Australian primary and secondary schools.
… our results suggest an average of approximately 75,000 incidents per year in government schools across the country—
Incidents of antisemitism were reported as more prevalent in secondary school settings, with 35% of secondary school teachers and administrators compared to 16% of primary school teachers and administrators surveyed reporting they had directly experienced, witnessed, or been informed by others of antisemitism
A criminal investigation will not be pursued in relation to the AFP member involved.
Which is the more serious criminal activity: extrajudicial killings, routine torture of prisoners and illegal renditions carried out by a state, or exposing those actions by publishing—
illegally leaked details of how, where, when and by whom they were committed?
My agenda for my time here is clear. I want to be able to look my grandchildren in the eye and tell them that it was during my time in the Senate that Australia turned the corner and legislated to begin the shift to a zero-carbon safe climate economy. I suggest some simple steps to start us off: set pollution reduction targets based on science; stop subsidising fossil fuels; create more jobs by boosting clean energy production and energy conservation; start closing coal-fired power stations; say no to new coal and gas exports; and make the big polluters pay for the damage they are doing.
I am also hoping to deal with unfinished business and see our forest heritage protected. This means getting timber and woodchips from plantations, not native forests, and no burning of native forests in furnaces for energy. It means creating the Great Forest National Park just to the east of Melbourne. I am here in this parliament for the Leadbeater's possums that live there.