2024-02-28 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 28 February 2024

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

 

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 1 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Parliamentary Standards 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, I advise you that I will be making a statement later today about matters from adjournment last night. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2] 1

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2]

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Greens' Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2]. I do so with absolute joy because prior to this role I was an environmental lawyer, and I've spent most of my working life trying to improve our environmental laws. I'm very proud to be speaking to this bill today. As folk may or may not know, our environmental laws are really old; they were written by Mr John Howard, so that probably tells you all you need to know about how much they actually protect the environment. In my view, they are set up to facilitate development, and, given the constitutional division of who's responsible for what, those laws only cover a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance. They cover things like water, threatened species, Ramsar sites and World Heritage, but, interestingly, they do not include the climate. So we have a farcical situation where a massive coalmine, for example, is seeking approval under federal environmental laws, and the climate impacts of that coalmine aren't relevant to the approval decision. The minister is not obliged to even consider the impact on the climate when approving coalmines—and, sadly, she has a track record of approving coalmines, as did the previous environment minister, as has every environment minister since these laws were introduced; I'll come to more detail on that shortly. We have a ridiculous situation where our environmental laws are not protecting our environment. They are not doing what they say on the tin, and the climate impacts of any large development—whether it's a fossil fuel development or any other development—are simply not considered because they are not considered a matter of national environmental significance. This bill would fix that. I might add that the government claims to be reviewing our environmental laws at the moment, but it's been a long time coming, folks. We have been waiting and waiting to see this alleged review of the EPBC Act, and we have seen no progress on that. This was an election commitment by the now Labor government to review those laws, with the intention, they say, to strengthen them, but we haven't seen the results of that review. In fact, the whole process of the review, interestingly, has been shrouded in secrecy, with closed-door consultations occurring with selected participants and selected stakeholders. Goodness knows what's going to come out of that process or if we'll see it before the election rolls around. The government has a chance here today to strengthen our environmental laws and to fix that gaping hole in them that ignores the climate. We have the numbers to pass this bill. The government could be supporting this bill, and they could be delivering on an election promise to strengthen environmental laws. Unfortunately, the government have indicated they don't want to strengthen environmental laws in this way. They don't want the climate impacts of massive coalmines, coal seam projects or other unconventional projects to be protected and considered by our environmental laws, which frankly is devastating to the many people who voted for a change of government, thinking they would get a better environmental outcome from this particular political party. Anyway, the invitation is there for the government to support this bill. I'm going to go through a little bit about what the bill actually does. This bill would establish a new matter of environmental significance. It would make sure that climate impacts and a particular tonnage of emissions were relevant considerations for the environment minister. It's rather elegantly structured, if I do say so myself, in that it deems a project that will have between 25,000 and 100,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent scope 1 emissions to be a significant impact. The plain English explanation is that it ensures that the Minister for the Environment and Water does then assess the impacts of that level of emissions on our natural environment, on nature and on people as part of her role as the environment minister. For those emissions that are under 100,000 tonnes, that project would then be sent through the environmental protection process that our EPBC Act sets up. For anything that emits over 100,000 tonnes, this bill would say that the minister actually has to refuse that. The minister cannot in good conscience and cannot legally approve a project, whether it's a coalmine, a coal seam gas project or what have you, if it's going to have more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent scope 1 emissions. The minister simply must refuse it. Folk might know that's how we treat nuclear facilities under the EPBC Act. They are prohibited as well. This takes that approach to large emitting projects of over 100,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. I think that's a really useful and sensible approach. It says: 'Look at the impacts on the climate. They're obviously going to be so great. Just say no. Don't even go through the approval process. That is unacceptable for our climate. That is a massive threat to nature, to biodiversity, to our way of life and to our agricultural productivity. Just say no.' That is the structure of the bill. The bill also requires the Climate Change Authority to develop a national carbon budget and to assess that budget annually. It requires the environment minister to assess projects that go through that assessment process, the 25,000 to 100,000 CO2 equivalent scope 1 emissions, against that national carbon budget. This is essentially to make sure that we're not going over our international commitments, which sadly we are. We are emitting far more than we signed up to at the Paris climate conference; many nations are. We are not on track to constrain global heating to a safe level. I will talk more about some really sobering communications from climate scientists and from the World Meteorological Organization shortly. So that's the structure of the bill. It's 2024, and it is completely outrageous that our environmental laws don't require climate to be considered. Climate change is the biggest threat to our natural world. It is an existential threat to the health of our rivers, to the quality of our forests, to food security, to the survival of wildlife and to the continued peaceful existence of our species on this planet. We are meant to be assessing harmful impacts on the environment, and this is a massive blind spot in our current laws. We desperately need this climate trigger. Last year alone, in 2023 alone, the environment minister approved five coalmines. The environment minister, the minister for the environment, under a Labor government approved five coalmines. Now, this is when all the world's scientists are saying, 'Stop approving new coal and gas and exit out of existing coal and gas as soon as you practicably can.' So, thanks for nothing, Minister Plibersek—five coalmines approved, and those approvals would cumulatively create almost 150 million tonnes of carbon emissions combined. They are the Isaac River coalmine, the Star coalmine, the Ensham coalmine—which is a big one—the Lake Vermont coalmine and, most recently Gregory Crinum, in my home state of Queensland; that one is approved to operate until 2073, and it would add 31 million tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere, equal to six per cent of Australia's annual emissions. Emissions under Labor rose by 3.6 million tonnes in 2023. I might add that a record number of threatened species have been added to our threatened species list, even though I thought this government had a 'no new extinctions' policy. And we've had more and more extreme weather events impacting Australians—homes destroyed in floods, wildlife killed in bushfires, people killed in bushfires. Yet the government has never met a coalmine it hasn't wanted to approve. There's one exception to that, and I expect the politics have quite a lot to do with that. The only coalmine the Albanese government has rejected is Clive Palmer's Central Queensland coal project. That project would have involved the construction of two open-cut pits to extract 10 million tonnes of coal each year, and it was conveniently located just 10 kilometres from the edge of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. So, in that instance, because of the impacts on the reef, the minister was able to reject that coalmine under our existing environmental laws. But we would like to give her the ability and the clear legal pathway to reject other coalmines, other fossil fuel developments and other large developments with that big CO2 equivalent footprint that I went through earlier. So, it's great that the politics saw her refuse one coalmine, but I'm afraid that the five coalmines that have been approved under this government are utterly unacceptable and not at all what the community expects from this government. I mentioned earlier that the minister is saying she's reviewing our environmental laws but has ruled out supporting a climate trigger, which makes absolutely no sense to me. And the government has pointed to the safeguard mechanism as its sole solution to the climate crisis. Well, it's not enough. We need to consider climate impacts but we need to consider biodiversity impacts as well, and it is right that the climate impacts of developments be considered through the structure and framework of our environmental laws. We cannot rely on the safeguard mechanism alone. I'd like to point out that the now Prime Minister 20 years ago introduced a bill that would achieve similar outcomes to the one we're proposing today. Mr Anthony Albanese in 2005 introduced a bill to add a climate trigger to our environmental laws—the very same laws that we still have to this day, because they're very old and they're not fit for purpose. So, in 2005 Mr Albanese thought these laws should include climate, and I would like to quote him: The glaring gap in matters of national environmental significance is climate change. This bill— his bill— closes that gap … It is time to act. It is time for procrastination to end … We cannot any longer afford to be complacent on this issue. Well, if we couldn't be complacent 20 years ago we certainly can't waste a single moment now. I would urge the Prime Minister to let his folk in the Senate know that in fact he does want to support a climate trigger in our environmental laws as he said he did 20 years ago. Every time the minister approves a new coal or gas project it makes the climate worse. Every tonne of coal mined and every tree cleared puts Australia's precious environment and communities on the front line of the climate crisis. This bill would close a glaring loophole in our environmental laws, and we are urging everybody in this chamber to support it. I want to go into some of the details of, sadly, the environmental impact of the climate crisis. We know the climate crisis is caused by the mining and burning of coal and gas, and Australia is doing an awful lot of that—way more than our planet can handle. Our coal and gas exports add more than 1.1 billion tonnes of emissions to the atmosphere every year. Add onto that the half a billion tonnes that we emit domestically, and Australia is one of the biggest contributors to the climate crisis in the entire world. The new coal and gas projects that Labor has in the pipeline would add over 1.7 billion more tonnes of emissions to the atmosphere every year. What all of those new coal and gas projects mean is that Darwin would be uninhabitable from the oppressive heat. The Northern Rivers region and Meanjin, or Brisbane, where I live, would be getting wiped by cyclones moving south, and the Murray-Darling Basin would dry up, destroying communities and our agricultural exports. Australia's coal and gas corporations opening new coal and gas projects and burning it either here or overseas is a matter of international significance and a matter of national environmental significance. So this bill does what the science demands, and what the science demands is no new coal, oil or gas infrastructure being built from now. We need to exit out of our existing infrastructure, but we certainly can't be opening up any new coal, oil or gas mines. The EU science agency recorded that last year, for a full year, the world's temperatures exceeded 1½ degrees of additional warming. That's what we said collectively, as a planet, we didn't want to go above, and, unfortunately, we have already hit 1½ degrees of warming. Emissions have gone up since this government came to power, and this bill would stop them going up even further. The World Meteorological Organization said that 2023 was the hottest year on record, but global emissions are higher than ever, and they're on track to increase. Coal and gas profits have never been higher either, and their political stranglehold has never been tighter. The head of the WMO has confirmed that the acceleration in the rate of global heating and its impacts have caught even scientists by surprise. The rate of human caused climate change is accelerating, and it's adding to a growing chorus of leading scientists. The World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General said: Greenhouse gas levels are record high. Global temperatures are record high. Sea level rise is record high. Antarctic sea ice is record low. It's a deafening cacophony of broken records. We can fix this trajectory. We need to fix our broken environmental laws and ensure that the climate impacts of new fossil fuel projects are taken into account and that large new coal and gas must be refused by the so-called environment minister. 09:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Labor Party will not be supporting the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2]. We've already changed the law, ending a decade of political infighting and instability caused by the former government. A strong new climate safeguard law, which was supported by the Greens political party and independents, means that coal and gas projects must comply with Australia's commitment to net zero. Our strong new climate laws developed with the Greens party and the independents allow the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to stop coal and gas projects adding to Australia's emissions. We are approving more renewable energy than ever before. Last week, we approved one of the biggest windfarms in the country. It will power 700,000 homes in New South Wales and save nearly five million tonnes of emissions every year. That's equivalent to taking 1.5 million cars off the road. This enormous transformation can't happen overnight, but we are working overtime to get there. When negotiating the new laws, the Greens environment spokesperson, Senator Hanson Young, said: … a hard cap on emissions, meaning real pollution must actually come down and the coal and gas corporations can't buy their way out of the cap with offsets. This puts a limit on coal and gas expansion in Australia. Pollution will now go down, not up. The Greens political party and the independents helped designed those laws, and then they voted for them. That drew a line under more than a decade of political fights that had stopped climate action. The climate minister is responsible for emissions and the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, is responsible for looking at possible impacts of a project on nature—for example, national parks, koala habitat and water quality. There are serious criminal penalties for breaking our strong new climate laws, including jail time for company executives. When Minister Plibersek blocked Clive Palmer's massive coal project, she became the first environment minister in Australian history to stop a coal mine. She blocked it because of things such as the impact it might have had on water quality and the Great Barrier Reef National Park. She's doing exactly the environment minister's job as she should. Any political party or politician looking to restart a fight about climate change would be wise to think twice. Australians have seen how political fights stopped action on climate change for more than 10 years, and nobody wants to see that again. In fact, the head of the Public Service under the former government, Mr Martin Parkinson, on the TV show Nemesis said: 'I mean, we've had a decade of drift in climate policy. We've had policies proposed and then upended. We've had science acknowledged and then ignored. And we've created a situation where more and more assets and more and more Australian lives are at risk from climate change than ever needed to be. I mean, to me, this is the single most irresponsible act that I've ever seen by governments.' Years of political fights over climate change have cost Australia, big time. A decade of the former government, of the Liberals and Nationals, meant emissions were higher for longer. It put renewable energy projects years behind. Those opposite abolished the climate laws. They brought lumps of coal into parliament. They laughed at rising sea levels in the Pacific. They announced 22 different energy and climate policies and landed exactly none of them. You had the Greens party team up with Tony Abbott to knock off the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which would have prevented more than 80 million tons of emissions by now. When Labor was first elected, Minister Plibersek released the official five-yearly report card on the Australian environment, the state of the environment report. The former minister, now deputy opposition leader, received it in 2021, but—surprise, surprise—chose to keep it hidden, locked away, until after the federal election. And we know why: it's a catalogue of horrors, and it shows it just how much damage a decade of the Liberal and National parties' neglect did to our environment. That report found that Australia has lost more mammal species to extinction than any other continent. For the first time, Australia has more foreign plant species than native. Habitat the size of Tasmania has been cleared. Plastics are choking our oceans—up to 80,000 pieces of plastics per square kilometre. Flow in most Murray-Darling rivers has reached record low levels. Is it any wonder our environment fared so badly under the former government, when, in the last decade, on top of their climate denialism, they also ignored the Samuel review into our environment laws, sabotaged the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, promised $40 million in Indigenous water but never delivered a drop, set recycling targets with no plan to deliver them, cut highly protected areas of marine parks in half and cut funding to the environment department by 40 per cent. This sums up a decade of environmental neglect. Thankfully, we have a new government, a Labor government—one that won't hide from the truth and will do what needs to be done to improve Australia's environment. We're not wasting a moment. As I've said, we've already legislated more ambitious emissions reduction targets. We're rewriting our environmental laws to build trust, integrity and efficiency into the system, with net zero by 2050 enshrined in law. There'll be a 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 and 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. We're doubling the rate of renewable energy approvals, with 43 ticked off to power over two million homes, and a record 127 more renewable projects are in the pipeline. There'll be cheaper electric cars; higher fuel efficiency standards; huge upgrades to our energy grid, so that it can take more renewable energy; help for homes and businesses to get off gas and onto electricity; and $2 billion for green hydrogen. We're protecting the Great Barrier Reef with a $1.2 billion investment. We're delivering the $276 million promised but not delivered to the Kakadu National Park. We're investing $225 million to better protect threatened species. We've committed to protecting 30 per cent of our land and sea by 2030. We've released a national threatened species action plan, towards zero extinctions. We've legislated our first—a world-first—nature repair market, to reward farmers and other landholders for their work in restoring and protecting the environment. We've committed to expanding our blue carbon projects, to rewild our oceans but also to create carbon sinks. We're working towards a plastic-free Pacific in our lifetimes. We're working on expanding our recycling and circular-economy targets and actions—including prioritising mattresses and medical waste, as part of our product stewardship priorities. We're committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full, including the water for the environment. We have redefined the Water Grid Investment Framework, which will ensure we can secure drinking water for the towns that need it the most. We will do all of this in partnership with First Nations Australians, because we recognise the great gift that comes with 65,000 years of successful environmental conservation. We're doubling the number of Indigenous rangers by the end of the decade. This will be a significant focus for the Labor government. We are here for the long haul. We don't want to see ambition legislated today, only to see it extinguished tomorrow. It's Labor governments that do the big things to make this country fairer, more inclusive and more sustainable, because that's what action on climate change looks like and that's what's possible when we stop the political fights and get on with it. 09:25 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Before I get to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2], I might just briefly respond to the Minister for Finance's claims there. She said that the government has ended the climate wars. Aren't all Australians happy that the climate wars are over! Ever since the climate wars have finished, interest rates have gone through the roof, grocery bills are skyrocketing and energy prices are through the roof. Isn't it a wonderful utopia that Australia has become since the climate wars have ended! This government has presided over the largest drop in living standards in Australia ever. There has never been a bigger drop in living standards than since we all signed up to net zero and ended the climate wars. What a wonderful environment we live in! In fact, last week new data on real wages came out, and the average wage level now is back to the level it was in 2011. We have gone backwards under this government, by 12 years, thanks to the policies of this government in terms of your living standards. That's why people are angry right now. They don't care about climate wars, about all these ridiculous arguments we have in this place. They want a government that is focused on their lives. They want to be able to pay their bills and stay in their own homes and not have to stay awake at night worrying about how they are going to pay for groceries tomorrow. That is the environment this government has delivered, by focusing on issues like climate change, which we in this country can do nothing about, but not focusing on what we are put here to do, which is to help our country become more prosperous and stronger in the difficult geopolitical environment we live in. That should be our focus in here. This bill, of course, would do nothing. It's another discussion we're having on issues that we can't control. It's another discussion we're having which will make zero difference. Even under the objectives of this bill, this bill will make zero difference. I listened to Senator Waters go through the description of her bill. She is very proud of the fact that her bill would put a stop to any project in this country that has scope 1 emissions, emissions of more than 100,000 tonnes. Okay, great. What is that going to do? What is it going to actually achieve for people? That's what we're here for, right? What is it going to achieve for Australians, for our country? That's the most important thing, but, even for the world, what's it going to achieve? In 2022, the last year that data is available for, the world as a whole emitted 37.15 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is a record, despite all the rhetoric we hear from leaders and all the wonderful international agreements that they sign after flying to the meetings in their private jets—the constant climate change conferences we have to put up with, the hypocrisy. As we watch our paper straws dissolve in our soft drinks, they fly off in their private jets to these conferences, sign a new agreement and pat themselves on the back, saying that they've saved the world. We're up to 28 of these international conferences now. They've had 28 of these meetings. Through all of those conferences, carbon emissions around the world have absolutely skyrocketed, to a record in 2022 of 37.15 billion tonnes. This bill would come in and say, 'Let's put a stop to all projects in Australia that emit more than 100,000 tonnes.' What does that mean? One hundred thousand tonnes, out of 37.15 billion tonnes, means that this bill would stop projects that would, terribly, increase global emissions by 0.000269 of a per cent. That's what this would achieve—a 0.000269 per cent change in global emissions. Well done, Australian Greens! How much will that change the temperature? They don't tell us. Tell us in simple terms what this bill will actually do. Will it stop bushfires? Will it stop cyclones? Will it reduce our global temperature? What is it going to achieve? It will achieve absolutely nothing. The lower limit on this bill—any project over 25,000 tonnes—would have to go through this climate trigger process. That would mean that threshold is 0.0000673 per cent—add another zero there behind the decimal point. It's absolutely ridiculous. It does nothing. What a waste of time we've got here. People listening to these must be pulling their hair out. They've got real problems in their lives and we are focusing on projects that would add three decimal places—three zeros and then some after it—of a per cent, to the world's emissions. What an absolute joke and an indictment of the state of our politics right now that we're focusing on this and not the real problems that face Australian people. Of course, this will do nothing for the environment. It'll simply make things harder to do in this country, in our nation, because nothing in this bill says that 'Look, if other countries aren't acting on climate change, if they're not doing their bit, nothing then absolves Australians to get on with life.' Why should we stop building coal mines and gas facilities in our country when other countries just continue to do it? They're even other countries that you think might actually be taking climate change seriously—other countries that are as loud and uselessly provocative in their rhetoric about this stuff. Look at the United States—there's an administration in the government of the United States that seems to take climate change seriously. They have a special envoy, John Kerry, who has left his job—he flies to these conferences, and they make a big deal of climate change in the United States. Last year the United States achieved a record level of oil and gas production. There's all the rhetoric and all talk but what's actually happening is they've got record amounts of rigs going around the Permian Basin in Texas drilling like there's no tomorrow. Yet we're going to sit here and try to stop what we're doing in this little part of the world and save the planet, apparently. It's absolutely absurd. The United States is now on track to double their LNG capacity in the next five years. LNG is liquefied natural gas—it's the process that needs to occur to export gas over our oceans if there are no pipeline is involved. Under our government in the last 10 years Australia became the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in the world. It has brought enormous wealth to our country. The exports of LNG have topped over $80 billion of wealth coming into this nation, massive amounts of tax revenues for the Commonwealth government, and huge levels of royalties for the state governments from these LNG projects. We were leading the world, but last year we lost our place as the top LNG exporter under this government to the United States. Why are we letting this happen? We are absolute fools. This is a total and utter scam, this whole net zero stuff, and we're the only fools who are seemingly taking it seriously and not attracting investment in oil and gas or in coal—it's all going elsewhere. Meanwhile, there have been three separate European countries in the last few months that have signed 30-year gas deals with Qatar. Qatar is also massively expanding its gas production facilities. It will also overtake Australia. It's just behind Australia at the moment and it'll overtake Australia in the years to come. We will be third place in the LNG rankings. Europe is also continuing to burn large amounts of oil. It doesn't get it from Russia anymore, thanks to Ukraine—well, it doesn't get it directly from Russia. But India has—quite astoundingly—the world's largest oil refiner at the moment, despite not having any major oil deposits of its own on the subcontinent. Why is India the largest oil refiner now? Because all that Russian oil is going to India, getting refined and put through a factory, and then Europe is buying it from India. It's buying Russian oil from India. It is a total and utter scam. This climate stuff is a scam that is only impoverishing those countries like ourselves that are foolish enough to try to actually do this while the rest of the world does absolutely nothing. There could have been an alternative universe over the last couple of years where the very high oil and gas and coal prices we have seen could have brought a new wave of investment into our country that would have created jobs, grown our economy and set us up for the future. The last time we had a massive commodity price boom, in the late 2000s and early 2010s, we attracted a huge amount of investment. We peaked at $100 billion of investment a year into the resources sector in Australia. That's a massive amount of capital expenditure. It helped keep our country going through the global financial crisis, which really didn't even touch our country thanks to that massive mining boom. This latest commodity price boom that we've been through, which did start before the Ukraine war but was supercharged by that, actually saw our terms of trade, the prices we receive for goods, at record levels. It was higher than the previous mining boom, in the early 2010s. But we did not attract the same level of investment. Mining investment—resources investment—has only been running at about $40 billion over those years. So we have missed out. We really should have been at that level, or thereabouts, of $100 billion a year. We've missed out on $60 billion a year of investment in the last few years because we've had a government that has been putting on carbon taxes—their so-called 'safeguard mechanism'—and has been actively discouraging investment in our country. Fortunately, for now we've been living off the legacy of the last mining boom. Those LNG exports, those coal exports and those record amounts of money we've been receiving in the last few years that have propped up the nation's budget have been the result of the legacy of the investments we got back in the 2010s. But, because we're not getting the investment today, we are going to be poorer tomorrow. Those coalmines and those LNG facilities that were built 10 years ago will, over the next decade or so, start to finish. Those mines will finish. The LNG facilities will be without feedstock and those exports will shrivel up. What are we going to do then? We've been promised critical minerals. The critical minerals industry has been the saviour this government is focused on. How's that going? The nickel industry is about to go kaput, unfortunately. It's absolutely tragic. We've had this wonderful nickel industry in Western Australia for 60 years. It was built by an Australian hero, a gentleman called Sir Arvi Parbo—an Estonian migrant who achieved a superhuman feat in the 1960s of building a nickel industry in the space of 18 months. He literally built a mine, a refinery and a rail line and exported to Japan in the 1960s within 18 months. We couldn't do that today. Sir Arvi Parbo said later in life that it wouldn't have happened today. But we built that, and we had that legacy. More than 10,000 people in Western Australia owe their jobs to that wonderful nickel industry. It's going down the gurgler right now because we've signed up to net zero. The government's saying that we're going to be able to produce green nickel and that the world will somehow pay a premium for our nickel because it's clean and they love the fact that we've got a green label on it. It's not working out too well. While we were focused on net zero goals, Indonesia—who also signed up to net zero emissions—decided to build coal-fired power stations financed by China and massively expand their nickel industry. They're undercutting us now and destroying our industry. Indonesia is stealing our nickel industry and stealing those jobs, because of our inane, futile, simple-minded net zero emissions goals. It's an absolute tragedy. Tens of thousands of Australian workers are going to be put out of a job because we're obsessed with these things while other countries just do their own thing. In 2022 Indonesia expanded their use of coal by an astounding 32 per cent, in one year. They're already a large user of coal—one of the largest users of coal in the world—and they expanded their use of coal by 32 per cent in one year. As the International Energy Agency said a couple of years ago, almost all of that increased coal use went into the production of nickel. Their nickel geology is actually worse than ours. They've got laterite geologies. That's much harder to mine and much more energy intensive. We should be beating them. There's no reason why we can't beat Indonesia on cost. Even with our high labour costs and even with our higher environmental standards, we always have beaten them until now—until we decided to go down this green-obsessive route and ignore the realities of the world. So possibly 10,000 workers are going to be put out of a job. There are already 1,000 who have lost their jobs, and the rest are not looking great. When is the government going to focus on that? When are we as a nation going to get back to focusing on being the best we can be—getting our costs of production down, being sharp in business and making sure our country goes forward? While we remain obsessed with these futile efforts to try and stop economically productive investments in our nation, we will simply become poorer. Nothing will change for the environment. There will be no change to the global temperature. The sea levels won't start declining because of this bill. It will simply cost Australian jobs, like those in the nickel industry, which is occurring right now. I wish I had more time, but it is not looking great. The new Indonesian Prime Minister ran on an election platform of doubling down on their nickel strategy. He also said that he wants to repeat that in copper and bauxite. So our copper industry and our aluminium industry are now in the sights of the same gun unless we start to wake up to ourselves, unless we start to drop these kinds of futile efforts and focus on our own nation, our own jobs and our own wealth and prosperity. We should reject this bill because it will do nothing for the environment but will cost Australian jobs and lower Australian living standards even more. 09:40 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I stand in support of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 and thank Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens for bringing it forward. Climate change is having a catastrophic impact on our environment. Clearly, in 2024 in Australia, that is a plain fact. Our incredible scientists have gathered so much evidence that the impact is now beyond dispute, despite what you may hear in this chamber. Back in 2021 the State of the environment report summarised the evidence on just how bad things are. In the report, Professor Graeme Samuel said climate change has: … a profound impact on the environment … Habitats, ecosystems and biodiversity; water systems and resources … will all be affected by rising temperatures and changing climate patterns. Professor Samuel saw the work of scientists like Professor Lesley Hughes, Professor David Lindenmayer, Professor Tim Flannery, Professor Will Steffen, Dr Joelle Gergis and many others and recognised that the writing is on the wall. If we don't address climate change, the natural world will rapidly deteriorate. It's already happening. It's happening under our watch. The thing we seem to forget in this place is that, if nature goes down, we go down with her. We are part of nature, but you wouldn't know it from the speeches we hear here and the decisions that get made in here by the major parties. If the science isn't enough, just look at the recent string of extreme weather events that have wreaked havoc across the country. Who will ever forget the 2019-20 bushfires? Forty-six million acres, three billion animals, and human lives lost. The 2021-22 floods. More than $7.7 billion of damage. Significant impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. And we know that this is going to get worse. This is not a new normal. Unless we see bold action here, using our place on the world stage as a middle power to push for action, it is only going to get worse. Clearly, everyone acknowledges—well, maybe not everyone, but most people—our environmental laws aren't working. One of the glaring holes in our environmental laws is not looking at the impact that fossil fuel projects will have on the climate. We have known this for a long time. As Senator Waters said, the now Prime Minister, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, sponsored the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Climate Change Trigger) Bill 2005. In introducing the bill, the Prime Minister said: We need action and one of the actions that we need, which has been acknowledged by the government for many years, is this amendment to the EPBC Act. That was in 2005, and here we are with the Albanese Government arguing against it, despite what we've seen over the last 20 years, despite what we're living through, and despite what we know climate change will mean for young people, who watch us roll out language that would seek to absolve us of any responsibility. As members in here we are incredibly privileged. With that privilege comes responsibility—I would argue responsibility to young people and to future generations. This morning we've heard government senators saying that they're doing a lot of work on climate change, using other policy levers—the safeguard mechanism, various funds to promote climate policy et cetera. None of what has been said is an argument that goes to the need for climate change to be incorporated into our national environmental laws. All that stuff is well and good, and we need to do this. We need to have climate change in our national environmental laws. I'm concerned that the government is dancing around the issue and distracting from the key problem that we're dealing with here: the lack of direct consideration of climate change in the EPBC Act. In their submission to the bill, Doctors for the Environment Australia said: To not include strict emissions allowances in an Act which is designed to protect the environment is a fundamental failure of duty of environmental care. We've heard from the major parties that they don't support this, but my challenge to the government is: if not this mechanism, then what? Climate change must be integrated into our national environmental laws. In 2005, now Prime Minister Albanese said: It is time to act. It is time for procrastination to end … We cannot any longer afford to be complacent on this issue. In 2024 we're seeing his government procrastinate. We're seeing ministers roll out this shopping list of things that they're doing but saying, 'No, we couldn't possibly put climate in our national environmental laws.' It's just so out of line with what Australians want. Australians want their elected representatives to actually deal with the problems at hand, to show some leadership, to show some guts and to stand up to the fossil fuel industry. I fear that Senator Canavan's contribution and even that of the government forget that this is a moral issue. We are dealing with a moral issue here—the obligation to act in the face of a massive global problem. And surely for us that means doing everything we can possibly do. The contributions we've heard from the government and the coalition seem to ignore the fact that we're one of the highest per capita emitters in the world in terms of our consumption as Australians. As Senator Canavan talked about, we're one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world. You cannot tell me that we don't make a difference. We should be doing everything we can and then, at every opportunity on the global stage, pushing the international community to follow us, but we haven't been doing that. We spent a decade in denial and delay, and now we've got a government that wants to get by with being able to say, 'Well, we're better than the coalition.' That's no bar to measure yourselves by. There's too much at stake here—far too much at stake here. We're currently failing Australians, and we're failing future generations. History will damn us if we do not see a change and if we don't show the leadership that's required in what is truly a crisis—the climate and biodiversity crises. I'd also note that in some of his contributions Senator Canavan's rhetoric isn't even in line with his own party's commitments to net zero. This is the party that's meant to be looking after farmers. The government's own ABARES data shows that the average farmer is down 20 per cent on their profits since the year 2000 because of climate change. Why aren't we making decisions for them? Why are the major parties doing the bidding of the fossil fuel companies? I dispute the fact that we've got a huge amount out of exporting gas. Last time I checked, we hadn't received a single cent of petroleum resource rent tax from offshore energy—not a single cent. That is deeply embarrassing because that's our gas. Once it's gone, it's gone. Why aren't we collecting that and using it to fund the transition, to fund adaptation, which is woefully underfunded? Last year we saw the government patting themselves on the back over a $200 million fund at the same time experts were saying we need to be spending in the order of $3 billion or $4 billion a year when it comes to adaptation. We're hearing that Labor accepts the science; they just don't seem willing to listen to the scientists or to the experts. We're hearing them talk a big game on climate and biodiversity, but we're not seeing the changes necessary; we're not seeing the courage. I know this is devastating for many Australians—particularly young people, who know what's at stake. Climate change is no longer this big thing out there; Australians know that this is about the people and places we love. All those things are on the line. Climate scientists have been warning us that we have this narrow window in which to act. What we do now will literally affect the future of humanity. What a moment to be alive, and what a moment to have some sort of ability to influence that. We hear this rhetoric from the major parties. On the one hand: 'Here's all the things we're doing. Look how good it is. But we don't actually need to take it as seriously as climate scientists are telling us.' And then there are, I fear, really damaging talking points from someone like Senator Canavan, who is basically saying: 'Why bother? Let's make hay while the sun shines. This isn't a moral issue; this is about why Australians should have to suffer at all.' That is despite us knowing we are the developed country that stands to lose the most from climate inaction, and we potentially stand to gain the most from bold climate action. So what are we doing in this place? One of the things that really stood out in Minister Gallagher's contribution was the fact they are spending $1.2 billion to save the Great Barrier Reef. That will not save the Great Barrier Reef from climate change; we know that climate change is the biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. We've had successive governments, coalition and Labor, lobby UNESCO not to list it as 'in danger' and then not take seriously the very thing that is endangering it. You couldn't make this up! What does it say about us as a country, as a people, willing to watch the Great Barrier Reef die, potentially in our lifetimes for some of us? Surely, if we truly loved it and if we truly believed we were here for a long time, we would be doing absolutely everything we could. We would see a wartime effort here at home in Australia to transform our economy, and then a using of every avenue when it comes to trade and diplomacy to push the world along. But I fear we are not seeing that. The other thing the government will point to is the safeguard mechanism. It sounds good: we have this mechanism, it's giving us a downward trajectory, there are fairly strict rules in terms of emissions for new entrants. But we know that, just recently, through the sea dumping bill that the major parties supported in this place, they have created a massive loophole in the safeguard mechanism at the behest of Santos, to allow them to offset their emissions by piping their emissions underneath the ocean. And now we hear that the government is considering allowing them to claim that their Barossa project is a backfill project, that it's not a new project but just an extension of an existing one—which, again, would allow them to get around the safeguard mechanism. So I simply do not buy the argument that the government is giving. It is out of line with what I'm hearing from people here in the ACT and it's out of line of what we see in poll after poll about Australians loving this place and wanting to look after it. This is serious business. This is something we should see both major parties supporting—to take seriously our moral obligation. 09:54 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales As usual, here we are, with the Greens making grandiose demands that are grounded nowhere in reality. They continue to think we can simply write blank cheques on these sorts of things and, problem solved, with little to no regard for the lives and livelihoods impacted in the construction of their utopia. You don't think all of us in this place wouldn't love to throw money at other problems in society and watch them vanish? But that's not how it works. We don't live in an imaginary world of unicorns. Money doesn't grow on trees. But, as usual, this bill isn't about helping the environment. It's about the Greens continuing their ideological vendetta against coal and gas companies in this country. They still do not understand that those baseload forms of energy are what keep prices down, with ample supply, and have helped Australia benefit economically. Not only that, but these forms of energy have helped people globally. In fact, Kerry Chikarovski, the former leader of the opposition in New South Wales, was on the ABC back in August, when we were last debating this bill, talking about the millions of people who have been lifted out of poverty as a result of cleaner Australian coal in India—regional centres receiving power for the first time, places that don't have the means to invest and build renewables. And it was as if she'd said a swear word, because everyone at the ABC had their fingers in their ears, changing the subject. This is the real inconvenient truth. They don't want to talk about these realities, like the sovereign risk posed by interconnectors on our renewable infrastructure or the forced Uighur labour in China involved in the construction of solar panels, or that moving too aggressively to shut out coal and gas without nuclear will mean that prices will skyrocket and blackouts will increase—especially when at present we can't keep up with the 22,000 solar panels we need to be building daily to meet the government's aggressive targets. Go and build them in the regions in arable farmland, because people need to stop eating the methane-emitting cows anyway! Bugs are the new beef! The UK is changing its tune on its own new targets. Germany has been forced to open coal again. And these are countries with clean and green nuclear. But we can't even have this discussion, because it's ideology over reality every day of the week. Passage of this bill would require the environment minister to intervene, to halt activities or limit or curtail many, many forms of industrial activity in Australia. It would disrupt projects that lead to vital economic activity, job creation and wealth generation. As was the case with a similar bill they brought into the parliament in 2020, the Greens have failed to specify the financial or regulatory impacts of this legislation. So, just let me sum it up for you: it would be bad. Passage of the bill would give rise to even more environmental assessment and approval processes that already exist. And that's the point. The Greens would have you believe that opposition MPs and senators are walking around looking for ways to destroy the environment. But I can assure you, I'm not driving my car up onto the kerb to take out shrubs on the way to the office each morning—and in fact it's an EV, so, if I did, would there be a net offset in emissions lost and shrubs destroyed? I'm not out there clubbing koalas that are in my trees on my property. We'll leave the clearing of koalas to you whilst you push forward with this Rewiring the Nation. Many businesses are already forced to spend months, if not years, navigating and meeting the exacting green-tape and compliance requirements associated with these processes, and this new legislation would only exacerbate these problems. There are already coal and gas projects that for years have jump through hoops to meet environmental requirements. Then, when they do, they're told that's not good enough. So is this simply a political vendetta? In the late nineties and early 2000s, the Howard government actually considered the potential merit of a greenhouse or climate trigger as a way of improving the scale and pace of emissions reductions in Australia. However, it ultimately decided that there were already other, and better, policies, laws, strategies and programs in place to achieve these objectives. The nineties, however, was probably the last time the greenies and activists seemed reasonable. They hugged trees and told us to save the whales. Now they glue themselves to streets and throw soup at paintings made by dead guys who didn't even know what climate change was. You're sure showing them! This is precisely the problem. You're upset at the world because it won't meet your demands—the ones that you know are best for everyone, because you seem to know better than everybody else. If only they could see that you're doing it for their own good! And if they won't listen to your requests, then we can make them listen to your demands. How very colonial of you! You're enforcing a way of life that you believe is better for the rest of us against our will because we'll thank you later, right? Perhaps you're all just victims of subconscious and systematic biases, built into the system by the patriarchy. I thought you were all so impervious to this and the rest of us sheep were the problem. Doesn't it just scream First World entitlement? Doesn't it reek of superiority complex? The rank hypocrisy is astounding. As I've said in this place many times, if the Greens didn't have double standards, they'd have none at all. No matter. The coalition has a strong and proud record of emissions reductions in Australia—a practical one based on reality. During our time in government between 2013 and 2022, for instance, Australia's emissions were reduced to a level 20 per cent lower than they were in 2005, which is the baseline for the Paris Agreement. That was a performance superior to that of any year under the Rudd and Gillard governments and left Australia's emissions over 100 million tonnes lower than they would have been under Labor's own projections about the proposed impact of its carbon tax. At the time we left office in 2022, we were on track to meet and beat our 2030 Paris target, with projections showing a 30 to 35 per cent reduction. Between 2005 and 2019, Australia reduced its emissions more quickly than did Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. Australia has a strong record of meeting its targets, having beaten its 2020 Kyoto target by 459 million tonnes. The coalition's technology driven Long-Term Emissions Reductions Plan also set out a credible pathway to net zero by 2050 while preserving our existing industries, establishing Australia as a leader in low-emissions technologies and positioning our region to prosper. Being technology agnostic is still the way forward. Invest and any and all technologies that allow you to reduce your CO2 emissions without erasing industries. This means you meet your targets and your economy doesn't suffer. But, again, while we sit here punishing ourselves as some sort of climate penance, we look at the largest emitter, China, which is continually absolved of its emission sins—a country whose emissions make our reductions obsolete. But I want to reiterate to the Greens that we're not trying to blow up the planet. We are committed to reducing emissions; we just have to do it in a way that brings everyone with us. You would have us destroy everything for this patch of paradise you envisage so that the privileged few could enjoy heaven on earth. You claim to fight for the immigrant, the poverty stricken and the minority, but these are the very people you would destroy in your pursuits. When there isn't enough energy to go around, when the cost of living continues to explode out of control, when inflation is rampant, who do you think suffers first? It's those most vulnerable people. If you really cared, you would put them first instead of your own interest, instead of your own ego. The coalition believe we can have our cake and eat it too. We've proven that. There is a way to reduce emissions without destroying ourselves in the process. But, as I've said, if we don't deal with the largest emitters, given it's a global issue, as you and the UN keep pointing out, then it seems to make no sense at all that we aren't all up in arms about those emissions. Their reductions alone would have the most significant impact on the climate to date. To finish up, I want to put a call out to all those climate activists. Instead of doing the easy stuff—chaining yourself to the steering wheel of your car on the freeway or throwing soup at art to demand climate action from a country that has been taking climate action for years—I'd like to suggest we get a GoFundMe together. Perhaps some of the Greens senators will lead the charge. We'll start a grassroots campaign to send you to China, where you can make demands of a real high emitter to help save the planet. In fact, in a spirit of generosity and cooperation, I'll chip in the first five bucks. I'm sure some of my colleagues will be willing to contribute. Any takers? Where is St Greta? Get her out of hibernation. Send her to the front lines. Do your bit for the planet, guys. But you won't, because you're all semantics and no substance, all about the virtue signal. As long as you all feel good about yourselves and empowered at the end of the day, you can all smile and pass your problems on to your kids, feeling content that you did your bit. That's what really matters in the end, isn't it—how you feel? Suffice to say, I don't think we'll be supporting this one. 10:06 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Climate Trigger) Bill 2022 [No. 2], introduced by Senator Hanson-Young, and to associate myself with the comments of Senators Waters and David Pocock. Labor say that they won't support this bill, and that's disappointing, because it means that the government is out of step with community sentiment. The community overwhelmingly wants us to take more action on climate, so, when the Greens and other members of the crossbench come into this place and talk about the need for more action, we are speaking for our communities. Senator Gallagher said in her contribution that the government wants to end the climate wars. Well, I think, after listening to the contributions of Senator Canavan and Senator Hughes, it is clear that the climate wars will never be over in the coalition. If we wait for that to happen to act with the urgency that is required, we will never get there. The Greens never said that action on climate ended with the passing of the climate legislation when we first came to parliament at the start of this term. We were clear that it was just the start and that we would continue to fight to stop the opening of new coal and gas in this country. The minister read out a long list of the actions that the government is taking on the environment. Whilst those are welcome, the hard, cold truth is that it will be for naught if we continue to approve new coal and gas. Senator Canavan said that we should just not worry about it, that it's just going to happen and we can't do anything about it. I'm sure that will bring great comfort to the people of his home state of Queensland, who have just suffered through multiple cyclones and floods and storms! Tell that to the families who were sitting on a table at 2 am, waiting for five hours as floodwaters rose around them, wondering if they were going to be able to get help. Tell that to the woman in North Queensland who was panicking when we showed up to help because her carpets were sodden and needed to be ripped out, but she was worried about whether she would be penalised and evicted by her landlord for taking the action that's required immediately after a flood. Tell that to the thousands of people in Queensland who either can't get insurance for their homes or, in the course of the next six months, are going to get an insurance renewal that they will not be able to afford. The climate wars will never be over in the coalition, and we should stop listening to them. The government should stop listening to them in stopping further action. We don't have time to take it slow and steady. That time has passed, and a government that is fearful of what will happen in the future if they lose power is not a government that is making the decisions that are required for the urgency— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Allman-Payne, it's time to interrupt the debate, as the time for the debate has expired. You will be in continuation. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 11 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Closing the Gap 11 10:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T I understand that arrangements have been made to allocate five minutes to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly. 10:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Ngunnawal people, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. This year marks 16 years since Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered the Apology to the Stolen Generations. The apology was, of course, a profound gesture for what it said about the past conduct of Australian governments, but the Rudd government also seized that moment of national healing to look to the future and to set in place the mechanism for measuring our collective efforts and improving the lives of Indigenous Australians: the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. In so doing, it set in place a mechanism to hold itself and future governments accountable. Now, 16 years on, we see that only 11 out of 19 socioeconomic outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that are measured in the annual Closing the gap reportare improving. Just four are on track to meet their targets. The Productivity Commission has made it clear that the current approach is not working, and this is a point made by many others, including Tom Calma, who said: Bureaucrats and governments can have the best intentions … but if their ideas have not been subject to the 'reality test' of the life experience of the local Indigenous peoples who are intended to benefit … then government efforts will fail. This was the logic underpinning our government's effort to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice in our nation's Constitution. Of course, we respect the result of last year's referendum and, as the Prime Minister has said, this government remains determined to move reconciliation forward while focusing on our immediate responsibilities: closing the gap, self-determination and tangible outcomes, particularly in jobs, housing, education, health and justice. We must deliver real jobs with real skills which mean real opportunities for First Nations people. That is why we are moving on from the failed Community Development Program. It created no real opportunities. It built no futures. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister and Minister Burney announced the creation of our Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program. The program will fund community organisations to create 3,000 real jobs with proper wages and decent conditions in remote areas, and these jobs will be developed in partnership with Indigenous communities that deliver services and infrastructure that communities want. This is an undeniably better approach. On housing, the government has worked with the Northern Territory government to escalate construction of remote housing to address the worst overcrowding rates in the country. Together we have achieved a 200 per cent increase in the rate of delivery of Commonwealth funded housing, building 100 homes in 100 days in 2023. In his speech in the House the Prime Minister outlined a number of areas of investment by the government—in health, education, training, housing, and vital services such as safe and reliable drinking water—which we believe will help close the gap. In addition, the government is establishing a National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People. The commissioner will be dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights, interests and wellbeing of First Nations children and young people. The commissioner will also be tasked with drawing on and highlighting their strengths, their sense of hope and their ideas for change. We recognise that in order to drive generational change we need to improve the lives of young Indigenous people. In pursuing this progress we are inspired by the determination of the late Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, who we lost this month. Like those of so many Indigenous people of the world's oldest continuous culture, hers was a story of survival, of persistence and of remarkable grace. Throughout her life and career she carved, through painstaking efforts, sometimes heated negotiations and often the hard work of compromise, a path for generations of Indigenous leaders to follow. Upon her passing, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, remarked that she and many other young Aboriginal women in the 1980s and 1990s looked at Lowitja and saw possibility. Her legacy is a reminder that progress is never easy. The path towards reconciliation has never been a straightforward one, but she showed us it is one of possibility. Reconciliation and justice happen only when people of goodwill and determination commit themselves to making the possibility of a better future a reality. On this 16th anniversary of a just apology for past wrongs, and in honour of Dr O'Donoghue, let us recommit ourselves to fulfilling the possibility of all Australians. 10:16 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I too acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we stand and pay my respects to all elders of the oldest continuing living culture in the world, of which we should be so proud. I acknowledge all Indigenous senators and members in the other place too. This year the tabling of the Closing the gap report is yet again a stark reminder of the challenges that we—and I use the term 'we' deliberately; it's all of us who make up the Australian parliament, along with state governments, state parliaments, local governments and right across the community—face if we are to achieve the ambition is set out in the Closing the gap report. Sadly, we stand here with a report which shows key targets going backwards: in children's early development, rates of adult incarceration, rates of children in out-of-home care and, sadly, rates of suicide. In fact, of the 19 socioeconomic targets only four are on track to be met. This is a far cry from the aspiration set by the parliament, quite rightly, 16 years ago on the occasion of Prime Minister Rudd's apology to the stolen generations and the renewal of that hope and ambition by each of his successors as Prime Minister. There should be no doubt that failure to achieve the targets set out in the Closing the gap report is not the result of a lack of good intent or determined effort by successive governments and ministers, working with partners, to shift the dial; yet, despite those good intents and efforts, here we are again. It is becoming a harsh reality that turning hope and aspiration into outcome is not something that can be achieved by the words, however genuine, we say here today, or have uttered on previous occasions, when we sombrely note the Closing the gap report. It will take more than words. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his address to the House on the Closing the gap report two weeks ago, the coalition welcomes the government's $707 million commitment to creating 3,000 remote jobs over three years. It is an admirable aim. It is, however, not the first time we have heard from governments—frankly, of both persuasions—about significant job-creating programs replacing previous incarnations of job-creating programs, all full of the same hope and promises. We—'we' again, right across the board—would all wish to see more jobs in remote communities, because it is clear that meaningful work and engagement in community are key to turning around what is a tide of disadvantage. They are critical not only for the individual but for the immediate and wider family of any individual. These are pathways to engagement with education, training and work, all of which we know feed better health outcomes and lower interaction with the justice system. We are concerned about the lack of detail in the jobs programs announced. Two weeks after them being announced, we're yet to see the details. I hope—and I expect this whole chamber and parliament will also hope—that this does not become another vision which fails to deliver the much-needed outcomes that First Australians deserve. We should also acknowledge positives. While they are thin within this report, they are there and the work of many to achieve them should be acknowledged. The report points to targets that are on track, across reducing the number of young people in detention, increasing preschool enrolments, and employment outcomes. These are all welcome and, again, are a function of efforts right across parliaments and governments. But the progress is slow or, in some cases, non-existent as we work towards targets that go backwards. I acknowledge the reforms of former minister Ken Wyatt to break down and localise Closing the Gap goals and targets, and that work must continue. National progress will ultimately only come via local outcomes. It should also be acknowledged that this is the first report since the outcome of the referendum last year. That outcome does not, I believe, speak to any lack of desire from Australians—certainly not from their elected representatives right across the land—to see First Nations Australians, especially those in remote parts of our nation, share the standard of living that most of us enjoy. If anything unites 'yes' and 'no' voters from last year, I suspect it is a common desire for tangible outcomes and real progress. It is that common desire that must see us all work collectively to achieve those outcomes. So I would urge all in this chamber, in the other place and in parliaments across Australia, and those whose lives are dedicated to improving circumstances of our First Australians—I thank them for their efforts and work—to come together in a redoubling of our collective effort, to work cooperatively and constructively towards the hopes and aspirations of Closing the Gap. Failure to come together, failure to do so, would, I fear, see us again—not just next year but the year after and many years hence—standing here again lamenting the lack of progress against these important targets. It is important that we measure these targets and that we report on them, but we must also bear responsibility to achieve outcomes to meet them. 10:21 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I'd like to start by acknowledging that this is Ngunnawal and Ngambri country. It always was and always will be. I honour their old people, their elders past and present and their future leaders. I rise to speak on the ministerial statement on Closing the Gap. I note that this statement was made in the other place on the 16th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations, an important time for remembrance and reflection for our First Peoples of this country, who endured such a devastating time individually and collectively, and for our future generations, who still feel the deep and profound trauma for their survival. The destructive nature of this legislative policy never disappeared. The testament to that is the fact that I am standing here today. I consider myself one of the lucky ones. Against all odds, my family line has survived. This policy tore families apart, destroyed communities and actively attempted to sever First Nations' connection to country and culture, a culture that has sustained us for over 65,000 years. In many ways, we are still trying to recover from what we lost and to protect what we have left, which is why standalone legislation for the protection of cultural heritage is vital. Fundamentally, at the core of this policy, were two ideas: that First Nations people were 'less than' and not worthy of existence, and that the government knows best how to manage our people. The Productivity Commission's Review of theNational Agreement on Closing the Gap, released earlier this month, showed two elements of those core ideas that were behind the policy that led to the stolen generations are, in fact, still ever present today. This report found that governments have largely not fulfilled their commitments and have failed to understand the nature and scale of change that is needed to meet their obligations under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. This report makes four recommendations that are largely aligned with the four priority areas of this agreement. They include power sharing, supporting First Nations data sovereignty, rethinking government systems and culture, and stronger accountability. This report shows what we have known for a long time. In fact, as First Nations people, we live this every day. The gaps are still not closing. It is a scathing and, to be honest, very distressing read. But we, as First Peoples, didn't need another report to tell us that governments are failing to understand what communities need. We are offered lip-service every time government ministers and their officials come into our communities. The report states that actions by governments 'exacerbate, rather than remedy, disadvantage and discrimination'. This is the definition of institutional racism. It shows how government departments and systems are reinforcing the disempowerment of First Nations people right across this country. These are the racist attitudes that led to the stolen generations, and these are the same attitudes that continue to keep our people out of schools, in hospitals or out of universities and workplaces. This government cannot sit around and continue to make small incremental changes. We have the most progressive parliament to date. There are wall-to-wall Labor governments on the mainland and there is prime opportunity for the radical overhaul that we so desperately need if we have any hope of meeting all of the 17 targets in Closing the Gap. Every day that passes without a government seizing that opportunity to make meaningful structural change is a conscious decision that this government makes not to improve the lives of First Nations people. First Nations people have the solutions in our communities. They know what we need. They have done this for 65,000 years and governments need to support and enable community-led solutions. Closing the gap is not a day. It's not a breakfast. It's not an event. It's not even a campaign. It is a way that we strive to keep governments honest in this country and for us all to make changes that are necessary. In the words of the late Mr Yunupingu in his 1988 Barunga statement: 'Let's make this right.' Let's make it right. First-nations people have been calling for a chance to do things differently and actually make some meaningful change, but we have two start now. We need this government to be courageous, we need them to stop making lame excuses and we need to make the big structural changes that is going to see the gap close within a generation. I am standing here as a First Nations senator. I've come to this place against all the odds and I'm going to keep fighting for my people to make sure that within that generation we are going to see that policy and legislative change. 10:26 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Well, here we go again—more taxpayers' money, more failure to close the gap. The Voice to parliament referendum was a divisive event that should never have been allowed to happen, but it produced two good outcomes. The first was the rejection of racial division and special privileges based on race by an overwhelming majority of Australians. The second was the exposure of the corrupt and unaccountable Aboriginal industry and its failure to close the gaps. Many more Australians are demanding answers to why the hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars absorbed by this industry over the years has not closed the gaps. They are demanding answers to why Aboriginal leaders and activists live in mansions and drive luxury cars while other Indigenous Australians live in poverty. From where do these Indigenous elites get all their money and privilege? And why isn't support getting to the Indigenous Australians who most need it? Where is the accountability for all of this money? My office is still inundated with calls from Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians from all over the country, demanding answers. The answers are simple: the industry is a racket, a scam preying of the despair of Indigenous Australians in remote communities dominated by poverty and violence, a scam preying on the Australian taxpayer. It's a racket invested in keeping a part of Indigenous Australia in poverty to justify its very existence and to keep the gravy train chugging along. I have worked with ethical Indigenous leaders to demonstrate some of the corruption of this industry. I've tried to table evidence of this corruption in the Senate but the politicians who are part of this racket won't allow it. I've written to the responsible ministers demanding accountability for this corruption, with no response coming back. I was finally met by the Department of Social Services—tasked with investigating this corruption. They asked me not to talk about it anymore and assured me they were pursuing the matter with all due diligence. They then handed it over to the toothless Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, known as ORIC. ORIC had previously handed the investigation to the DSS on the basis that it didn't have the capacity or expertise to do so. These delays have been going on for years. The individuals who are subjects of the investigation are still allowed to run an Aboriginal organisation receiving taxpayer money. They're still allowed to remain in positions advising this Labor government. The gap will never be closed as long as this industry is allowed to exist. The only way to get to the bottom of why the gap is not being closed is to conduct a comprehensive audit of this industry's failures. I'm not the only one calling for this audit, but I'm calling for it on behalf of many Australians, Indigenous or not, who are demanding it. Recently other senators like Senators Price and Liddle have been calling for it too, but I've been a lone voice for it since 1996. Labor and Greens senators denied it, and Senators Jacqui Lambie, Tammy Tyrrell and David Pocock refused to support it. They don't want anyone looking at the books. They don't want any accountability for hundreds of billions of dollars wasted over decades. How can they account for approximately $35 billion to $40 billion a year spent on three per cent of the population with little or no real outcomes? Eventually the racket will be exposed for the scam that it is, and those people responsible for it will pay. Closing the gap requires a return to the principle central to Australian democracy—equality. I have always called for equality among all Australians, and I was condemned as a racist by the same people who have been part of this racket. Assistance should be based on individual need, and all individuals should take responsibility for their own actions. Stop blaming white Australians and colonialism. A person's cultural background or skin colour should never entitle them to more assistance than any other Australian. Equal rights for all and special rights for none, equal laws for all and special laws for none—it is the only way it is fair. It's the only way to close the gap and empower all Indigenous Australians equally. Again, I put forward that I want an audit done on where the money has gone, and I hope that this parliament—if it is really fair dinkum about Indigenous Australians—will support this audit and call for accountability. (Time expired) 10:31 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory There are good, decent, hardworking Australians across this country who know that First Nations people want to achieve the best not only for themselves but for their families and their communities. To hear this Senate and the previous speaker paint in one swipe the degrading attitude towards First Nations people in this country is an absolute slur on this parliament. First Nations people in this country want to live better lives. They want to live longer lives. They want to live lives without being incarcerated. They want to live lives that give their children a future felt with love, compassion, warmth, security, a home and a house to live in. That's no different to any other Australian in this country. But the reason why we stand here every year in February is to remind the country that inequality still exists; that is why we do this in this parliament. No political party is to blame for the complete disadvantage and poverty that exists out there, but all parties have to take responsibility for improving it. The attacks on the referendum are completely unfounded. It is part of our democracy to have referendums in this country. We had one on the republic, and we have had them on numerous pieces of legislation that have impacted this Senate. That's what referendums are. Again, it lessens the integrity of this chamber to attack the fact that we had a referendum. We took it to the people because the people who asked us to put the question to the rest of Australia had worked on it for decades, and they do not deserve to be treated in such a fashion by this chamber. They are people who have worked hard to rise above their circumstances to achieve their educational degrees. Call them what you like, but they have a right to put to this parliament a better way forward for the people they live with and think they have an answer to. The country didn't accept that; the country said no. We on this side accept that response, but for some reason there still seems to be this conversation and dialogue. They have to keep burying down the very people who wanted to find a solution for, and give a solution to, this parliament for a way forward. They are now treated so badly, and they do not have to be. This parliament, this chamber, should not do that. We stand here because we still have problems with trying to achieve equality in the First Nations space. The Prime Minister has announced 3,000 jobs as a way forward, especially with the Community Development Program, which we know has not worked. I certainly hope members opposite will work with us very strongly to achieve the economic goals and aims that we want to see to improve equality for First Nations people. This should actually be above politics. Inequality, disadvantage and poverty should not be something we should all think we're better at trying to improve. We should all work together on that, and that's what this opportunity is all about. So I'm hoping, with the next 12 months, we look at all the things that we want to achieve. The jobs initiatives, the $30.2 million for remote training hubs in up to seven remote locations, the $10.7 million to continue funding for the Justice Policy Partnership, the $20 million for community wi-fi services across 20 remote communities, and the $24 million to expand the Junior Ranger programs, will be supported here. I thank SNAICC, the peak body, the national voice for our children, which has been calling for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children's commissioner for many years. I thank them for their advocacy. We are now going to appoint a National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children's Commissioner to work with our families, very aware of the issues of our youth across the country. But let's not lower the standards of this Senate, this chamber, in running into the ground the very people who want to put solutions to the parliament on a way forward for their families. 10:36 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory The Closing the gap annual report and the three-year review on the National Agreement on Closing the Gap released recently over a critical period for Indigenous affairs in Australia. During the last year, all Australians were asked to give their view on how they would like to see governments across the country approach the issue of Indigenous disadvantage. The referendum was a rare opportunity for a single portfolio area to be given a national spotlight for information most would consider niche to be presented to the public, and for all Australians to contribute in a fashion, delivering their own recommendations to government. The first recommendation of the Australian people is to approach these issues as one united Australia, focusing not solely on race but on need. We must address disadvantage where it exists, not at a racial level but where specific help is needed. If the target of Closing the Gap is to be reached, we must do away with the idea that there exists a silver bullet, a one-size-fits-all solution, to Indigenous disadvantage, a remedy that will work just as well for someone living in remote Australia as it will for someone in a capital city. I believe that the next step in our approach to Closing the Gap requires a restart of sorts, a fundamental rethink of our approach to Indigenous disadvantage. That begins with a closer look at the organisations and bodies that exist right now. This year we marked 15 years since the first Closing the gap report was tabled, yet Aboriginal on Aboriginal violence remains an all too real problem that others would seek to ignore. It's on the streets of Alice Springs, throughout the Northern Territory and across the country. The rates of domestic violence within Indigenous households are devastatingly high. Drug and alcohol abuse are all too common. Children are often abused, sexually assaulted and treated in unthinkable ways, yet many still prefer to ignore that in this chamber. Education rates are low. Traditional owners struggle in their fight to use their own land for economic opportunity, and, as we have seen recently, organisations and individuals exploit them for personal gain. Clearly something is not working, and I believe that only a thorough audit of those organisations will reveal what that is. Likewise, only a thorough audit will show us where some groups are having success and how that might be emulated. I believe, as does the coalition, that only a royal commission into Indigenous child sexual abuse, which others want to ignore, will reveal the full extent of the problem and what we must do to put an end to it. Accountability and transparency are fundamental to the approach that Australians have asked us to take in addressing Indigenous disadvantage, and it is accountability and transparency that must form the basis of this next stage in addressing Indigenous marginalisation and disadvantage. Each year members of this parliament rise to speak about the annual report. It is a tradition that I fear will continue for far too long. I mean, eventually we want to get to a point where we are not addressing this report because the gap will have closed. I hope we will make this year different. I hope that we will use this opportunity not simply to mark yet another report, but to mark a new approach. Well, I hope that we begin a fundamental rethink of the current method, a questioning of the premise from which we launch our fight for real change and an end to the separatism that has characterised our approach so far. I believe what the coalition believes: we can close the gap, but it starts with change not more virtue signalling and empty gestures. No more putting all our eggs in the one basket. No more grand silver bullet approaches to disadvantage. We will close the gap if we come together and focus on need, not race. 10:41 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The annual Closing the gap reportshowed only four of 19 Closing the Gap targets were on track and four have been getting worse. The Productivity Commission's report on the Closing the Gap agreement was damned. It called for a complete overhaul of the way First Nations policies are developed and implemented. This is not new or surprising to First Peoples in this country. 'Closing the gap' has long been a dirty word in our communities because this approach has been a failure from the start. Closing the Gap was Howard's initiative—the same man responsible for the intervention and who sent the Army into our communities. It focuses on our deficits rather than the strength, power and beauty that is our birthright. The government need to start thinking about and addressing their own deficits, their own gaps in understanding and appreciation of the knowledge and cultural authority of the oldest living culture on the planet. Governments will continue to fail on justice for our people until we have self-determination. The systems aren't broken; they are designed to take away the power of First Peoples and harm us. It is by design that power sharing doesn't happen. The partnership agreement with the Coalition of Peaks is a step towards this, but it is still not self-determination. Self-determination means giving grassroots First Peoples and sovereign nations real decision-making power for what is best for our families, children and country. We don't need more overpaid commissioners, ignored reports, token advisory bodies or so-called partnerships that governments continue to ignore. Governments have no clue what is best for First Peoples in this country. They need to admit they do not have the answers—we do. That is why self-determination through treaty is the only viable pathway forward. Treaties from the grassroots up will give each language group the ability to negotiate an agreement that works for them. That is how this country can move forward and find unity and heal. It is the pathway to peace. Treaty will help us come together as a country, recognise the sovereignty of First Peoples and begin to fix the ongoing injustices our people face from your system. It is beyond disappointing to see Minister Burney and the Prime Minister dodge questions in recent weeks about their commitment to truth and treaty. This government needs to come clean with First Peoples and everyone in this country and begin telling the truth. Albanese's and Burney's statements have shown that Labor— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, refer to MPs in the other place by their correct titles. Senator THORPE 280304 The Prime Minister's and the Minister for Indigenous Australians' statements have shown that Labor intends to kick the can down the road, dodge questions, delay progress, say treaty is a state responsibility and hope people forget that they've broken yet another promise. Trifecta of Labor prime ministers: shame on you! This is a basic human right that everyone in this country takes for granted. Three per cent of the country has to wait for this report card to show us, yet again, that we have no rights in this country. Closing the Gap continues to frame First Peoples in comparison to whiteness—your whiteness—and white achievement. We are only considered successful when we subscribe to the colonial system and its individualistic values. We have to go begging for basic human rights in 2024—begging for governments to stop taking our children and to stop locking us up. First Nations women are the most incarcerated women in the world. Our babies, as young as 10, are getting locked up at higher and higher rates. And you wonder why we're not meeting targets for early childhood development and why First Nations suicides are at crisis levels. You expect us to come to your morning teas and get excited about the new commissioner, Closing the Gap and saying sorry. Our sovereign rights, as outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, continue to be denied by this government. We need truth and treaty so we can heal and move forward in a way that respects human rights and international standards. Stop the genocide of our people, Labor. Stop using the native police to get there. (Time expired) 10:47 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Sixteen years ago, on the first parliamentary sitting day of a new Labor government, First Nations communities around Australia embraced a formal apology for the unjust and inhumane treatment experienced by our mothers, our fathers, our grandmothers and grandfathers, and our great-grandmothers and great-grandfathers—in particular, the stolen generations. On that day in 2008, our country turned a new page in Australia's history, focused on moving forward to the future with confidence and with hope in the new relationship between the Commonwealth and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. A key part of this work has been undertaken through the Closing the Gap framework, which aims to reduce disparity between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non-Aboriginal people on key health, education and economic opportunity targets. The Productivity Commission's review into the progress of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, released earlier this month, was not the message of headway and optimism that I know many wanted it to be. I have already spoken in this chamber about the review, and I hope to emphasise its message of sovereignty and self-determination. We know that the same old paternalistic assumption of 'government knows best' has not worked. For decades, government organisations and agencies have engaged with communities by consulting on a predetermined solution. It is no surprise to many of our mob around this country that this approach does not deliver any real outcomes. As First Nations leaders have said since long before my time, we have the solutions to the issues that we face. Our mob are resilient and innovative, and we will continue to be so in all matters affecting our lives. The Albanese Labor government understands that, if we truly want to enable better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, government must do more than just consultation and partnerships. We must empower First Peoples with shared decision-making and focus on working with communities to identify priorities and co-design the best approach to achieving them. We are advancing on this front, and the experiences, needs and solutions of First Nations Australians are becoming a centrepiece of the national conversation. The Albanese Labor government reaffirms our commitment and our determination to make practical progress for the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians under the Closing the Gap agreement. Since coming to government, we've begun the change—to treat politics differently. We will continue to deliver on the Closing the Gap implementation plan by working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not by telling mob what they need. A good example of our government doing this happened in just the last fortnight, when the Minister for Indigenous Australians announced that we will establish a national commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people—something that has been long called for by our community. The commissioner will be appointed as early as mid-2024 and will focus on evidence based programs and policies to deliver results for First Nations young people, because supporting our young people to get the best start in life will shape not only their futures but also the futures of our communities. Promoting the voices of First Nations children through this commissioner will unlock the productivity that we know exists there now and will into the future. It's important that we get this right, for our kids. When the Labor government pledged to bridge the divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in 2008, this nation turned a new page in our history. This government will add to our significant delivery of better health, housing, education and employment services, and ensure that all First Nations Australians can live longer, healthier and happier lives. I could name the long list of actions that this government is undertaking, but I will let the actions speak for themselves. Of course, there is a lot more to be done on economic empowerment of First Nations people, and we are getting on with this job, too. We will continue to build economic strength in all of our communities, giving our children the opportunities and the safe and prosperous futures that they deserve. That is what is most important. Australia has nothing to lose by elevating First Nations people, knowledge, systems and businesses, but we have so much to gain as a nation. 10:52 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia So, here we are again: another year on, and not a lot has changed—not enough, if your life depended on it; not enough, given the level of resources directed at it. In any language, on any measure, it's just not good enough. How is the gap to be closed when the targets for the next generation are the ones that are not on track, and in fact they are going backwards: justice; child development; children in out-of-home care; and health and wellbeing, including suicide? I'm going to focus on those four targets, because they're the ones that are worsening. Justice is outcome 10. A read of the report shows it outlines strategies that relate to when an individual is already in contact with the justice system, rather than to what keeps them out of it. If you were to drop into the Alice Springs courthouse today—like I did a little while ago—there would likely be more children in the courthouse than there were in child care. If you actually look for yourself, this devastating reality is in plain sight, and if the Labor Party, the Greens and Senator David Pocock and the do-gooders got amongst it, they'd see it, too. As the shadow minister, my focus will be on children being in school rather than on the streets and on adults who can be at work and not on welfare, and not on an employment program that's not really employment. When we do that, the cells, the courtrooms and the correctional services will be less crowded with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Thriving children is outcome 4. Your cognitive ability and capacity to learn is directly impacted by your exposure to trauma, substance misuse and violence. When you have been roaming the streets all night to avoid the chaos at home, there's little hope of respite unless someone responsible and accountable steps in. Families keep it together when they get help when they need it, from people experienced to deliver it. Replacing parental responsibility with government programs is not a sustainable long-term solution. It's more honest and meaningful when we stop counting enrolments and start counting attendance, and when we focus on outcomes, not outputs. Outcome 12 is on children in out-of-home care. Children exposed to violence, or who experience violence, make up the greatest number of children now in the care of the state. When progress is made on the drivers that contribute to family violence, every headline number, in reports just like this one, and every life should change for the better. When you are more likely to be removed before the age of one, and the system locks you in and your family out, then the challenge for recovery and healing is so much harder. For the children, for the families, for the taxpayer, more focus on the work to reunite families, where it is safe to do so, must be where much of the work is done, because that's better for everyone. Outcome 14 is suicide and mental health. None of these outcomes can be addressed in isolation, because the ultimate demonstration of failure is when an individual loses all hope. The service delivery silos, competition for resources and inaction on calling out those services who are not delivering as they should just add to the scale of harm. Stop shying away from talk about sexual abuse, because that only protects perpetrators and does nothing to help survivors break their silence. Want to close the gap? Don't close your mind from making the tough decisions. When Labor and the Greens do things that make them feel good, rather than doing good, people get hurt. Things don't change, and gaps don't close. The foundation of this government's Closing the gap report is the announcement of 3,000 so-called real jobs and $700 million—another long-promised announcement, complete with a slogan, 'Real jobs, proper wages and decent conditions', and, in true Labor style, an absence of detail and no real modelling. The key to improving lives is addressing domestic and family violence, and addressing that would be better for everyone, not just Indigenous Australians. The target of reducing all forms of violence by 50 per cent by 2031 simply won't be achieved without the reintroduction of the cashless debit card, because removing it has caused chaos. The statistics will tell you that the levels of violence have gone up. The Closing the gap report is all about strategies, statistics and statements. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want the same things as everyone else, and often that is forgotten in this debate. It is the most marginalised within this cohort who need our greatest attention and must remain our focus. Without greater accountability across all governments and service providers, there won't be the scale of change that is needed. It starts with examining and auditing what is bleedingly and painfully obvious. 10:57 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The lack of progress in meeting our Closing the Gap targets as a country is clearly a blemish on our nation. The dismal statistics reflect our failure to recognise our past and are a manifestation of the pain still felt and disadvantage still experienced by so many First Nations people. It's crystal clear in these statistics and the Productivity Commission report that our current approach is failing. We cannot just keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. We must do better. Many would think that the nation's capital wouldn't have the same failures seen throughout the rest of the country. Unfortunately this is far from the truth. An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person in the ACT is almost 25 times more likely to be sent to prison than a non-Indigenous person—25 times. This is the highest rate in the country. We're the fourth worst in the country for Indigenous children in the child protection services, right here in Canberra. It's the same story when it comes to health. It's the same when it comes to financial outcomes. The fact that we allow this to happen in a jurisdiction as small as the ACT is a disgrace, and it seems clear to me that it is not enough of a priority for some of the ACT's elected representatives. You have to look at the work of somewhere like Winnunga, the only Aboriginal community controlled health organisation in the ACT, the work that Julie Tongs and her incredible team do in our community for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and for other Canberrans. I'd like to take the opportunity to recognise her and the whole team at Winnunga. The ACT showed the strongest support of any jurisdiction for the Voice at the referendum. I think that the ACT government should take this as an endorsement from Canberrans to move forward with a truly independent Indigenous elected body—a body that is not under the thumb of the government and that can provide frank and fearless advice to government on what is going wrong and how we can fix it here in the ACT. This goes right to the heart of the Productivity Commission report. We have to end tokenistic engagements. We have to start putting the power to solve these persistent problems into the hands of communities in a meaningful way. Time and again First Nations people, and especially elders, have shared with me their extreme frustration at the totally inadequate support for fundamentals like health and housing that can help change the future outcomes for their children and grandchildren. Again, the ACT falls behind the rest of the nation in these areas. We have fewer GPs than some rural and regional areas, the lowest bulk billing rates in the country and the highest gap fees by some distance. There are at least 3,100 people on the social housing waitlist, and public housing stock is in a condition that the CFMMEU national secretary has called Third World—here in Canberra. I believe the only way we will start to see the gap close is by solving these core issues of health and housing, and by putting the power and the responsibility of creating community led solutions into the hands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There's much work to do in this space, and, again, I would like to acknowledge people here in the ACT who are working tirelessly and have done so for decades to solve these problems. It's up to elected representatives to give them more power and more agency to implement those solutions. 11:01 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are hugely talented in the NRL, the AFL, arts, business, science, sport and politics, with a higher proportion of Aboriginal people in the Federal Parliament than across Australia. I've driven to all Cape York communities twice and some three times. I've flown or boated into Torres Strait Island communities where people really care for each other, but government control removes meaning from life and suffocates that care. I have enormous faith in Aboriginal and Islander people. Why doesn't the government? Aboriginal people are resilient after surviving Australia's harsh environment for thousands of years. They don't need mollycoddling. The Closing the gap annual report is clear—a total failure in closing the gap. Only four of 17 targets have been met or have achieved goals, and some gaps are actually worsening. Labor-Greens and Liberal-Nationals governments fail to listen to or meet people's real needs. Patronising paternalism and top-down approaches suppress, torment and destroy Aboriginal people. In reporting to parliament on closing the gap, successive prime ministers and opposition leaders duck and weave, using broad, fluffy motherhood statements to portray vague, insincere aspirations devoid of data and specifics—lies. The governmental view that it knows best is clearly wrong. So where's the solution? For the 2022-23 financial year, total resourcing for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the NIAA, was $4.5 billion on programs. The result was rank failure. Where did the money go? This government continually refuses to audit government spending in this sector. Why? What's being hidden from scrutiny? Last October in Senate estimates hearings, I asked whether money would be more effective if it went directly to Aboriginal communities. I meant it. The NIAA said that it sometimes allocates money to communities. I meant directly to communities, bypassing agencies for direct allocations to communities via a transparent, objective formula. When I travel across communities in Far North Queensland and the Northern Territory, listening to local Aboriginal people, it's clear they know the answers. I was told that many, many activists, advocates, consultants, lawyers, academics, contractors and public servants rely on keeping the gap wide open, because they work the system, and their livelihoods depend on the program's ongoing failure. They depend on the gap being maintained, not closed, to perpetuate the need for their roles and accompanying salaries. Reportedly, Mr Ian Trust chairs Empowered Communities, an Aboriginal organisation and alliance of 10 Aboriginal regions that lobbied hard for the opportunity to review funding decisions with government. In 2017, more than half of the funding considered was found to be duplication and misdirection. Of $1.98 million spent, $1 million was wasted. With sensible local representatives in charge, this model develops responsibility and ownership. Mr Trust supported the cashless debit card and objected to the Albanese government's capricious decision to take it away without consulting the people. Despite extensive evidence of alcohol related harm to Aboriginal children, the McGowan Labor government ignored his calls for severe alcohol restrictions in his home town. Why won't governments listen and learn? The Australian people spoke decisively when we overwhelmingly rejected the divisive Voice referendum 60-40. We, the people of Australia, do not want race to decide rights that should apply to all Australians, yet some states and territories are still actively considering introducing voices and/or treaties. That's a big middle finger to the Australian people's decision. South Australia's One Nation MP, Sarah Game, is sponsoring a bill to repeal the South Australian voice legislation, which clearly has no public mandate. I applaud Sarah Game's initiative. When will this government accept the advice from grassroots Aboriginal groups as to what does and does not work based on real-life experience and go beyond that to give communities real autonomy? It's time that leeches and bureaucrats sucking on the teats of the Aboriginal industry realise that their time is up and that we're coming for them. Senator Pauline Hanson opened this debate 27 years ago and remains at the fore of pushing for equitable treatment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, the same as for all Australians. Now in the Senate we have Senators Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle joining us in speaking common sense and truth. The government needs to consider bypassing state and agency grants to fund communities directly to develop autonomy for real improvement. As a senator to the people of Queensland and Australia, I serve the people of Queensland and Australia. I support it as the quickest and most powerful way to develop responsibility, ownership and progress. This solution is based on autonomy, human community and responsibility being keys to closing the gap. Question agreed to. BILLS 20 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 20

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

Second Reading 20 11:07 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill. The coalition supports this bill, but my intention is to move a substantive amendment calling on the government to amend the act to require the secretary, as defined by the act, to pay paid parental leave instalments directly to employees of small businesses, except in cases where a small business opts to pay the PPL instalments directly to the employee. The coalition has had a strong record of supporting government funded paid parental leave and has seen women's workforce participation reach highs when it was in government. In March 2022, as part of the Women's Budget Statement, the coalition underlined its commitment to PPL by announcing enhanced paid parental leave. Enhanced paid parental leave would have seen an investment of $346.1 million over five years to expand PPL, giving working families full choice and control over how they would use 20 weeks of taxpayer funded paid parental leave. It was pleasing to see Labor adopt key elements of the coalition's enhanced paid parental leave in the last tranche of PPL reforms, which the coalition also supported. Today the coalition continues to support the expansion of PPL but will move a substantive amendment to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill to support small business. This bill expands the scheme by two weeks each year until it reaches 26 weeks in 2026 through two parts. Part 1 extends the PPL scheme by two weeks each year from 1 July 2024 to reach 26 weeks by 1 July 2026. It extends the reserved period for certain claimants who are partnered at the time of their first effective claim by one week each year from 1 July 2025 to reach four weeks by 1 July 2026. It increases the number of days that can be taken concurrently by multiple claimants in relation to the child to four weeks by 1 July 2025 and amends part 2-3 of the PPL Act to clarify the eligibility criteria for claimants in exceptional circumstances, including claimants who are gaining parents in a surrogacy arrangement, and it makes consequential amendments relating to the measures described above. Part 2 deals with the application of amendments to claims made before, during and after the transition period from 26 March 2024 to 30 June 2024. Under section 60 of the PPL act a person can make a claim for parental leave 97 days before the expected date of the birth of the child. The minister can also make rules with respect to matters of a transitional nature. As we know, the PPL scheme includes a mandatory employer role, which requires employers to pay government funded paid parental leave to eligible long-term employees. Employers are required to provide PPL taken by the employee only in continuous blocks—at least 40 consecutive weekdays—at the beginning of their entitlement, and Services Australia provides any PPL days taken outside of this block. According to the government, the purpose of the employer role in administering the scheme is to maintain the connection between employees on paid parental leave and their employers. The coalition believes that the current Paid Parental Leave Scheme disproportionately impacts smaller businesses, imposing an additional red tape burden on small businesses by making them the pay clerk for a government scheme. The coalition calls on the government to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act to require the secretary, as defined by the act, to pay paid parental leave instalments directly to employees of small businesses except in cases where the small business opts to pay the paid parental leave instalments directly to the employee. Small businesses with no human resources department are drowning in red tape already. Administering these payments increases the administrative burden on resource-poor small businesses and adds to payroll processing times. Under the coalition's proposal, small businesses could opt in to administer the scheme or have Services Australia administer the scheme to small business employees, reducing the regulatory burden on the small business sector. With many small business employers finding no benefit to their relationship with employees while administering the scheme, it's time this unnecessary burden is lifted from small businesses, the engine room of our economy. While supporting the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023, the coalition will move these amendments seeking to remove the red tape burden from small business at the appropriate time. I commend the bill and hope that this chamber will see fit to approve and support our amendments. 11:12 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. This bill is a step towards a fairer paid parental leave system—but it's a baby step, if you'll pardon the pun, and it leaves parents, particularly women, waiting. There is no reason to delay the implementation of good policy. This bill is a critical opportunity to move towards best practice, and it should start with an immediate increase to 26 weeks of paid leave, and it needs to include a pathway to 52 weeks of paid leave by 2030. The bill does neither of those things, which is why I'll be moving amendments to do both of them. Parents should not have to wait until 2026 for 26 weeks of paid parental leave. Parents should have immediate access to a minimum of 26 weeks of paid leave to allow recovery from birth, to maximise options to establish breastfeeding and to allow parents to spend time with their infants. The only reason given by the government to delay full implementation of the increase to 26 weeks of PPL is financial: they can't afford it. Yet billions of dollars are wasted on other things every day. Women and parents should not be asked to wait while, with things like nuclear submarines and tax cuts, which still disproportionately benefit men—they're not asked to wait. Australia has also fallen behind other countries in the rate of paid parental leave as well as in how leave is allocated between parents. Australia's paid parental leave rate is one of the lowest in the OECD. For some people, a full-time minimum wage is an increase on their previous earnings, but for many parents the minimum wage is well below their normal earnings, and this forces difficult decisions about how long parents can afford to take leave and who takes that leave. Now, we know that continuing to pay paid parental leave at minimum wage is not an effective incentive to induce more fathers to take parental leave. The reintroduction of the 'use it or lose it' provisions in this bill to encourage shared parenting is welcome, but we need a replacement wage to ensure that there are not financial barriers adding to the cultural barriers which, sadly, still exist for fathers to take PPL. We've seen time and time again in Scandinavian countries how the replacement wage and shared care provisions cause a huge increase in the number of dads taking leave and how the fairer share of caring that gets established in those early months is then sustained for over a decade. Australian parents deserve parental leave paid at replacement wage, with incentives for employers to top up the government scheme. We're not asking for government to pay the whole replacement wage; we're asking for a partnership approach whereby the worker receives the same amount they otherwise would, because government is paying the basic and employers are topping that up. Without that replacement wage it's the parent on the lower income—which, sadly, is often the mother—who is too often forced to leave employment. As I mentioned before, this sets up a domino effect of women not only retiring with 23 per cent less super—that retirement wage gap—and many older women retiring into poverty; it also sets up that disproportionate distribution of unpaid domestic work. We know that mothers and women are still doing far more than their share of the unpaid labour, which is crucial and which helps our economy. We need to do everything we can to incentivise fathers to pull their weight at home, and one of the ways of doing that is by making sure that paid parental leave is a financially attractive option for men. That's why a replacement wage, as well as shared care, is crucial. Paying parental leave at replacement wage was one of the recommendations of the government's own Women's Economic Equality Taskforce last year, for the reasons I've just outlined. The taskforce also recommended expanding PPL to 52 weeks, which one of the amendments that I'll move in the committee stage would achieve. That taskforce also recommended paying superannuation on paid parental leave. Those are the changes that are collectively needed to unlock women's workforce participation and to help close the persistent gender pay gap and the retirement income gap, and the super gap for that matter. By failing to put superannuation on paid parental leave, which the government says is their policy yet they are somehow still not doing, the government is increasing the risk that women will retire into poverty. Paying super on PPL has been a longstanding policy of the Greens. It has been a longstanding policy of many unions. It has been a longstanding policy of women's economic security advocates. It's also, technically, meant to be the Labor Party's policy. The Albanese government have repeatedly said that they'd like to pay super on PPL, but only when budget circumstances permit. That's at the same time that they're using those budget circumstances to prioritise nuclear submarines and prop up the fossil fuel industry, for example, not to mention the tax cuts that just passed this chamber last night, which, again, still disproportionately benefit men, to the tune of about 58 per cent. Parental leave is the only form of leave that is paid without superannuation, and it's predominantly taken by women. So leaving superannuation off parental leave is actually an act of discrimination that directly undermines the purpose of parental leave, which is to encourage people to take leave to look after their kids, give them the best start to life and keep that connection to the workplace. The Albanese government has a series of opportunities to pay super on PPL, and the Greens will continue to work with the government to find any and every opportunity to do that. Eligibility for PPL should also be expanded by relaxing the work test and residency requirements so that people are not unfairly excluded from leave. All families should be supported to take parental leave, regardless of their circumstances. I will be moving amendments to this bill, firstly to increase paid parental to 52 weeks by 2030. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, many peak bodies and unions—the ACTU in particular—have highlighted that that's the international standard. Fifty-two weeks of paid parental leave is the international standard that Australian families deserve, and they deserve it as soon as possible, so I invite the chamber to give serious consideration to supporting that amendment. I'll also be moving an amendment to achieve an immediate increase to that 26 weeks by 1 July of this year so that women and parents don't have to wait until 2026 for the support that they deserve. I would urge the chamber to consider that amendment also. This bill is a baby step to support parents in the first crucial few months of parenthood. We will be supporting this bill, but so much more needs to be done if we are to truly tackle gender inequality in this country and truly ensure that parents and kids have the best start in life. We also need more support for parents, including accessible and affordable child care; making that free should surely be a budget priority for a Labor government. We need longer paid parental leave now, we need it paid at a higher level of income replacement, we need super included and we need the scheme design to support a better share of parental care. The case for change could not be clearer. 11:20 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Australia has a paid parental leave scheme that federal Labor is very proud of putting in place. It's a scheme that supports Australian families regardless of marital status or the gender of parents. It's flexible, fair and positive. But, as we know, it requires continual improvement. This bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023, does just that. It gives families access to more paid parental leave, provides parents flexibility in how they can take that leave and encourages parents to share care and support amongst the family. It's good for parents, good for kids, good for employers and good for the economy. Reflecting on my own life: when my son was young I had just left the Senate, and I didn't qualify for paid parental leave because of the income that I had had the previous year. But I was delighted that my son's father, who I'm not married to, was able to take that paid parental leave himself. I can see from my own experience, therefore, the importance of having flexibility embedded in the scheme. I'm glad to see that more mums will now qualify; it was in fact discriminating against mums because if they had earned too much money it had implications inside the policy scheme for who was able to take time off with their children. The better interchangeability of this scheme among parents is really important, as is increasing the length of the payment from 20 to 26 weeks, increasing the period reserved for each parent from two to four weeks and doubling the period where parents can take paid parental leave at the same time from two to four weeks. It's terrific to see that, starting in the middle of this year, two weeks of additional leave will be added till we reach 26 weeks. I'd like to see us continue as a nation to lift this scheme and make it better for families. I was listening to the radio this morning talking about the declining birthrates in Japan and Korea. Australia addresses its declining birthrate largely through migration, but if you look in other countries where there are better paid parental leave schemes they can have a positive impact on people's decision to have children and on employers' ability to retain and attract staff. One of the issues I raise in the context of this debate, that intersects with it, is more around the industrial relations rights of people who are pregnant. If you get a job with an employer, you don't start trying to get pregnant because you haven't accrued the right to return to your job yet—so you will delay ending using the pill, or whatever, and you will delay starting a family so that you are confident you've got a job to go back to. For many people, falling pregnant doesn't happen all that easily and they find themselves in the position where they've been in a job for three years, they're still not pregnant but they don't want to leave that job and end up with another employer where they have to spend a year in the job to have the right to paid parental leave or even the right to unpaid parental leave, which is the right to return to the job that they left. In these kinds of examples, Madam Acting Deputy President, you can see real barriers, as discussed in some of the other debates we've had this week, to gender pay equity, because women have a more limited ability to be mobile in the workforce. In this context it's really good to see that many major companies in Australia are now doing away with the need to wait a year to accrue the right to return to your job post your pregnancy. It's no longer legal for a prospective employer to ask someone if they intend to get pregnant, but we know that discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace is rife in Australia. From the work of the Human Rights Commission we know that, alongside disability, it is one of the most frequent forms of discrimination that people experience. When we look at the issue of government sponsored paid parental leave, it's really important that we look holistically at what we need to do as a country to better support women to take paid parental leave, to take leave so that they can have a child. That's because there's a cost in this space if you end up waiting until you're financially secure enough to think, 'Okay, I can survive for 26 weeks on just the minimum wage,' or, 'I've got a partner who can support me during this period.' If you wait all that time to say, 'Right, my ducks are lined up; I can now take time out of the workforce to try to get pregnant,' and so make that decision at 35 or 36, then actually you are much more likely to need reproductive technology to get pregnant. So we really do need to look holistically at the kinds of expenses we have around paid parental leave. I, for one, believe you should be able to choose the age at which you fall pregnant, but, sadly, that is not the reality of life. People need to consider the biological window for falling pregnant and, at the very least, be mindful and aware of the consequences of making a decision to delay parenthood. I was very privileged to be able to have a child at the age of 42—my beautiful son is now nine—but it was an expensive road of IVF, especially had I not had the workforce security et cetera. I would like to see women able to make better decisions, in the context of their family, as to when and how they are going to have children. Seeing paid parental leave move to 26 weeks and seeing people being able to make well-informed, positive choices about their family formation, the structure of their household, their working life, their relationship with their partner in terms of who works and who stays home, and their time together with a new child is critically important. But it is also critically important in the context of our industrial relations scheme and the rights that attach to that so that we're not discriminating against women in the workforce in unintended ways. I draw on the example I gave before, of women delaying having children because they need to spend time in a particular job for a particular time to acquire the right to return to that job, for the sake of job security. In addition, if women are delaying having children, I don't think it would take much maths, really, to go away and look at the level of IVF cross-subsidy, which is probably around $2,000 a cycle at the moment—I'm not entirely sure what it is currently. If you have three or four IVF cycles and also look at your own out-of-pocket costs, it doesn't take long to do the maths and ask whether we can we actually look at having a paid maternity leave scheme that really helps women make decisions around how they want to create their family at a time in their life where they can make the most of their fertility window without worrying about whether they will have a job to return to, and without worrying about how they're going to pay the mortgage and keep a roof over their head; and in full knowledge that they will keenly return to the workforce if they want to, and will keenly seek to maximise their workforce participation if not with the employer that they return to after their maternity leave then with a new employer. I would really like to see pregnancy discrimination and paid parental leave looked at in a much more integrated way in our nation. I very much support this bill because it is a very good step in the right direction. 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 more opportunities for women. I commend the bill to the Senate. 11:33 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I have had the privilege of sitting on both the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which looked at the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023; and the Education and Employment References Committee, which my colleague Senator O'Sullivan chairs, which recently looked into the impacts of paid parental leave on small business. Before I discuss what we heard during both of these inquiries, it is important to note that it is a good thing that both sides of this chamber agree that 26 weeks of paid parental leave is the right thing for working Australian parents. In fact, in 2010 and 2013 the coalition took 26 weeks paid parental leave to the election, and I'm glad that we are now in a place where paid parental leave is available to Australian parents. But it is also important to highlight that it has been a decade, and in the past 10 years a great deal has changed, especially in the way small businesses operate and in the way they need to manage their payrolls. This is something we heard from small-business owners and their representatives during both the EEC hearings into the potential impacts of the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme on small business and their employees and the Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearings into this bill. As it stands, the way PPL works under the current system is that all employers, regardless of their size, have a mandatory role which requires them to pay government funded parental leave to eligible employees. The purpose of this is to ensure that there is a continuous connection between the employer and the employee; however, this is a system that is oriented around large corporates and institutions who have sufficiently sized payroll teams and infrastructure to be able to manage this and who also have a reliable cash flow. It doesn't consider small and family businesses. In evidence given at the EEC's inquiry we heard the following testimony from one small-business owner: It's putting this burden on a business. Now, you know, a big business, they just have to set up a system, I suppose, and it's all automatically done by pressing a button. But … we're a small business, so there's learning about it, which we all have to do anyway, but it would have been so much easier if they had … said, look, this is like a social security payment that we're paying to the recipient. The reality is that for small businesses that comprise of 20 employees or fewer there is a significant amount of administrative burden that is placed on them in this process. During the hearing for this bill, Ms Heazlewood from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry spoke about the additional burden that the PPL scheme places on small businesses. She said: We have heard from our small-business members that having them as the middlemen in the payments process creates a significant administrative burden on payroll processing time. When problems arise with payments, not at the fault of the employer, it can take a lengthy period of time to resolve, often causing the most distress to the employee and create unnecessary tension. This evidence was backed up by a survey provided by the Motor Traders' Association in their submission on the impacts of paid parental leave on small business. They found that of the 246 automotive businesses that completed their survey, PPL added to the payroll processing time for more than 90 per cent of respondents. It increased the administrative burden on the business for almost 92 per cent of respondents. And it created cash flow problems for over 32 per cent of respondents. We need to think about that: it's adding a cash flow burden to small businesses administering a government payment. The MTA said 96.1 per cent of respondents stated that, given a choice, they would prefer Services Australia to pay the paid parental leave directly. These survey results were matched by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey results, which also found that 88 per cent of small businesses overwhelmingly believe that PPL should be administered by Services Australia, and that 97 per cent of businesses surveyed that had previously administered the system said, if given a choice, they would prefer for the payments to be administered by Services Australia. ACCI's research also found that 90.7 per cent of small businesses who administered the payment reported an increased administrative burden in managing the payment process. ACCI also found that many small-business employers administering leave payments found no benefit to their relationship with their employees because doing so does not actually involve or require any proper communication. Some of the suggestion is that these payments must be made by the business in order to maintain a connection. If you have a small business of five or six employees and one of your key people is on parental leave, you don't forget about it. You notice it. You know that they're gone. It's very different in a large organisation that may have hundreds or thousands of employees as somebody could fly under the radar in that regard. This is a really important distinction to understand why this is perhaps appropriate for large businesses and institutional businesses and not for a small or family based Australian business. That is why the coalition is moving a substantive amendment calling on the government to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act to require the secretary, as defined by the act, to pay PPL instalments directly to employees of small businesses, except in cases where a small business opts to pay the instalments directly to an employee. This is giving the small business a choice, if they can manage it, to actually do it or, if they can't, to opt to have Services Australia manage the payment. As we know, under the current system, there is already an opt-in system. An employer who is not legally obliged to make the payment to an employee—for example, if the recipient has been an employee for less than 12 months—can opt in to do so with the agreement of their employee. In the 2021-22 year around 38 per cent of employers had opted in to pay other employees not covered by the legal obligations. What we also discovered at the committee hearings for this bill was that there is also an opt-out option. During the hearing, when asked about challenges and complexities small businesses may face with administering the system and why they may choose to opt out, Mr Flavel of the Department of Social Services said: It's more a case that the current opt-out arrangements are not done on the basis of the size of the business, but rather on the basis of the administrative cost, particularly with respect to an employee who wants to take their entitlement in the form of a few days here and a few days there—in other words, anything less than 40 days—the employer has the ability to opt out of that arrangement. Clearly, for any sort of fixed cost, it's always going to be borne more by small business … Those aren't my words. They're the words of the Department of Social Services. We know small businesses are impacted the most by this scheme, and the department knows this too. Given an opt-out option already exists for employers of any size if their administrative burden is proven to be too costly, why can't this simply be extended to all businesses of 20 people or fewer, who we know do not have the capacity to be the government's payment facilitator? What makes the refusal to address the administrative burden more worrying and perhaps ironic is that many small businesses are run by women—the very demographic this matter was first designed to assist. During the EEC's hearings, one small private sector employer stated, 'It was just a real headache to set up. I feel that it was actually a really negative thing for both of us—for our business and on the life of the young girl that took advantage of it.' We also heard that, on average, it can take anywhere between four and six hours to set up a small business's first employee. That's just to have it in the system so as to be able to start the processing of that first employee. That's a lot of time. That's time that a small-business operator isn't in their shop, isn't talking to their clients, isn't working on building their business but is actually managing an administrative function of a federal government department. This comes at a considerable cost and also places strain on the employer-employee relationship, which is contrary to the intent of this scheme. The intent is for it to build relationships, not damage them. By addressing this administrative burden and simply cutting small businesses out of being the middleman for government payments, the government has an opportunity to make this scheme better for everyone. First and foremost, it will save small businesses productivity loss in being an administrator on behalf of the government. More importantly, it means new parents will have their payments managed by Services Australia, who have the capacity to address their changing needs, the cash flow to ensure that they are paid correctly and on time and the institutional knowledge to address any of their questions and concerns on a payment that is being administered by them. The coalition knows that simple changes can be made to this scheme to make life easier for small businesses and new parents. We have the track record to prove that, in terms of our deep engagement with small-business owners. In government, we saw women's participation in the workforce reach record highs, and we are really proud of that. We amended PPL legislation so that there are special circumstances which allow a person to meet the work test if they have been impacted by family and domestic violence, or a natural disaster, or a severe medical condition, which means we didn't stick to the prescriptive rules that said, 'You have to meet these seven checkboxes, in order to get this payment.' We actually said, 'There can sometimes be circumstances that mean that you don't always fit the test, but you should be eligible for this payment.' We want to take that same approach to ensuring that small businesses are not unnecessarily burdened in making this payment to their staff, instead of having Services Australia manage the payment for them. In the same way, we made sure women did not miss out on PPL because of circumstances that were beyond their control. We allowed JobKeeper and COVID-19 disaster payments to count towards the work test for PPL to prove a genuine connection to the workplace. Again, these were simple, pragmatic solutions to make sure that the intent of this policy and payment worked in favour of parents. We indexed the income threshold for the first time since the scheme had been introduced, ensuring again that more women did not miss out on these payments—that more families did not miss out on these payments. We support the transition to 26 weeks paid leave, as we did in 2010 and 2013. But we know that this scheme is unsustainable for small businesses in its current form, and that is why this bill should be passed with our suggested amendments. They would reduce the red-tape-compliance burden on small businesses and allow them to focus on their core work: actually running their small business—ensuring that they have a strong, robust and successful small business for their employees to return to when that time comes. 11:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory This bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023, provides another welcome step toward improving the PPL scheme so that parents and caregivers can spend more time with their new babies. I would like to acknowledge the work that the committee did, in looking into this bill, and to thank the secretariat. In particular, I thank Senator Kovacic for her focus on small business, as she has just outlined, which I will come to later in my remarks. I think an important part of this which we need to acknowledge, and which is very welcome, is the continued focus on supporting dads to take more time out of work to share the care. When you look at the Nordic countries—leaders in PPL, globally—you see that it is rare for fathers to skip parental leave; they have no incentive to do so. And the benefits that have been delivered to those countries have been massive. The employment rate for women in those countries is significantly higher than it is in Australia. It has been shown to not just increase women's participation in the labour market but also to decrease discrimination in the workplace and in recruitment processes. That's not to say that the Nordic economies are perfect, but, from the available research, it's clear that a well-designed PPL scheme pays an economic dividend. PPL also has important social benefits. OECD research shows that fathers who take care of their children at an early stage tend to stay more involved with their children as they grow up. Fathers also report greater satisfaction and better physical and mental health. At a time when we are continuing to grapple with rising chronic disease, including mental illness, it's a wonderful thing to be looking at something that could fundamentally make Australians happier and healthier—in this case, time spent with a brand-new family member. Of course, the design of the schemes over in Europe is far more generous than that of our scheme and what was available after the bill was passed. In many Nordic countries where these dividends have been realised, benefits are paid for longer and as a replacement wage. I acknowledge that previous governments and the current government are charting a different approach where employers play a voluntary role in the PPL system through top-ups and other mechanisms, but it seems inevitable that this will lead to a fairly inconsistent experience of PPL throughout the economy, and I would suggest it's going to be those at the high-earning end that will see their employers contribute more to PPL over the coming years. Notwithstanding this, I really welcome the improvements being made here today and would urge ongoing evaluation so that we aren't locking ourselves into a 'set and forget' for this scheme. I will say that it is a great shame not to see the government move on paying superannuation on paid parental leave. There is very rich evidence showing this is contributing to women retiring with an average of one third less super than men. People shouldn't be penalised for taking a small amount of time out of the workforce to raise the next generation. The government has at various times said it would make this change, that it would consider the need in each budget. I have to say: it's pretty galling to see budgets passed that have billions of dollars allocated to fossil fuel subsidies, yet governments cry poor when the community asks for $200 million to address the retirement savings gap for women. We can only hope we will see that changed in this year's budget. I want to raise some concerns about small businesses. Every small-business person I've spoken with is supportive of more generous paid parental leave entitlements. People are proud to live in a country where this kind of support is made available by the government, where we all agree that new parents should not be financially punished for being with their children. What small-business owners don't understand is why they are required to administer a government payment instead of having Services Australia deliver payments directly. This isn't an issue of job security for new parents; the Fair Work Act protects the jobs of parents who, if they've been in a job for at least 12 months, are entitled to 12 months of parental leave. So why do we expect small business to act as a go-between, receiving funds from Services Australia often with lengthy delays before passing them on to their staff? Last year a Senate inquiry considered this question. All the small-business owners and representatives who participated in that inquiry were concerned about the administrative burden of the current arrangement. The department's own submission to the inquiry reported that requiring small businesses to play this go-between role would cost them an average of 15 hours per employee. Those hours are utterly wasted, and, during a productivity crisis, you'd think the government would act on this. Of course, small businesses aren't compensated for those hours; they are expected to absorb the costs of all the time spent on the phone with Services Australia, with their accountants and with their staff, trying to figure out the nuances of the convoluted process. I will be moving a second reading amendment, co-sponsored by Senators Lambie and Babet, calling on the government to compensate small businesses for their time. But there is a far simpler solution here. Services Australia can make the payments directly, and already do so; in almost 40 per cent of the cases they are making these payments directly. We heard evidence at last year's inquiry that the confusing three-way relationship demanded by the current legislation creates tension between small businesses and their workers. We also heard testimony from frustrated mothers who run small businesses that it just does not make sense to force them to administer a Commonwealth payment. Unfortunately, the government has chosen to ignore that testimony, to ignore the voices of female small-business owners who, when they have children, often have no choice but to continue devoting time to running their businesses. They'd love to be in a position to take parental leave, but that's just not possible for most small-business owners who, even when they have an infant at home, often have to continue keeping the books, coordinating staff and even filling in for shifts. We've been told the small-business role in administering this government payment helps maintain a relationship between the employer and the employee. I suppose the assumption is that having the small-business's name on the payslip instead of Services Australia's is important to the relationship, but my conversations with small-business owners suggest they have far stronger relationships with their staff than a name on a payslip. As one witness pointed out during the inquiry, all senators' staff are paid by the Department of Finance. Does that diminish the relationship between senators and their staff? Last year's inquiry recommended exempting small businesses from having to administer this government payment, allowing them to opt in if they choose to with their employee's consent. It's a simple solution, and this is a perfect example of red tape that needs cutting. Really, it's the smallest amount of tape the government could have chosen to cut. You're not really cutting tape; you're just not adding another layer of complexity. I really fear that instead the government has taken an ideological stance on this issue, proving—unfortunately and yet again—that it does not understand the experience of small-business owners. I fear going against some of the very strong words and warnings from Commissioner Holmes in delivering the robodebt royal commission. From what I read, she's talking about how the way that we talk about social security in Australia really matters. It matters. I think we should be proud that we live in a country that does have a social security system, that has a safety net and things like paid parental leave. We should be proud that that's actually from taxpayers. That's us as communities and societies saying, 'We think that you should be able to stay at home and look after your newborn, and we're going to pay that.' What the government's trying to do is make this seem like some sort of work entitlement, which I think diminishes the fact that it is paid for by taxpayers. We should be proud that this is coming from taxpayers and that we have Services Australia that administer these payments to a range of people for a range of circumstances. If the claim is that dealing with Services Australia is too burdensome for new parents, let's fix that problem. I acknowledge the government has done a lot of work in that area when it comes to wait times, but let's shovel a problem with Services Australia onto small-business owners. Let's fix the actual root cause of this problem, which is that it's currently difficult to navigate the system. The crossbench is proposing a range of models for this small-business exemption, with different definitions of 'small business' all the way down to microbusinesses, where the argument around 'maintaining the relationship' just doesn't hold up. If you've got five employees in your business, I assume you're working together all the time and relationships are pretty good. That's very different to working for a big supermarket with thousands and thousands of employees. I will be moving a range of amendments of different variants where the parent leads the decision-making process so that employees can choose to have Services Australia make the payment to them directly if they prefer not to have the small business between them and the government. This is putting choice in the hands of the people taking paid parental leave, and I really hope that the Senate will be supporting these sensible solutions to this problem that has been acknowledged and looked at, and that a Senate committee has reported on. To sum up, I call on the government to support these solutions, to set aside the ideology and ease the strain on small-business people. We've heard a lot about boosting productivity—this is the way. Fifteen hours per employee is totally unnecessary because Services Australia can and do administer this payment directly. We can do this and continue to give parents the entitlements they deserve, and celebrate the fact that this is coming from taxpayers—this is coming from the Commonwealth, not from the business. We should sort out any administrative issues with Services Australia. With that, I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie and Senator Babet, move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to compensate small businesses for the time required to administer the payment of instalments of parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, whether by direct payment or tax offset". 11:59 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill. The Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which I chair, completed our inquiry into this bill in recent weeks. On behalf of all the members of the committee—and I acknowledge those here today and who have already spoken on this bill—I want to thank the witnesses who contributed to our inquiry and all those who made submissions in support of our work. Paid parental leave is the proudest of Labor legacies. It was introduced by the Gillard government in 2011. I was working in this building when it was brought in, and I saw firsthand the impact this scheme had, not just on the women who would be immediately able to access it but on young women, like myself at the time, who, because of paid parental leave, were able to recalibrate their career trajectories, rethink the industries that they could work in and relook at the pathways they could take because this important pathway would be in place. For women in low-paid or insecure work especially, it has been transformational. It was and remains a policy reform which made history in this country for mothers and fathers, for their children and for their employees. It is a truly game-changing Labor reform. In the decade since we brought that in, paid parental leave lay neglected until the first tranche of our paid parental leave reforms was legislated at the start of last year. Those changes gave more families access to the payment and more flexibility in how they could take leave and encouraged the sharing of care—critical reforms that worked to change culture and change the support available for both mum and dad in those critical early months. Now, with this bill, we get to go even further in this massive journey of reform. Here, we are laying the pathway for our expansion of paid parental leave to 26 weeks—an investment of half a billion dollars to the scheme by 2026, representing the largest investment in paid parental leave since its introduction in 2011. This bill encourages fathers and partners to play a more active role in the care of children, a role they want to take. It supports the maternal health of mothers, and it supports the health of their babies. It supports women's workforce participation. It reflects our commitment to improve the lives of working families, to support better outcomes for children and to advance economic equality for women. As I said before, this bill expands the paid parental leave pay maximum entitlement from 20 weeks to 26 weeks by 1 July 2026. Reflecting the advice of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, it increases the reserved 'use it or lose it' period for each parent from two weeks to four weeks by 1 July 2026 and increases the concurrency limit from two weeks to four weeks by 1 July 2025. These reforms are critical—critical for families, critical for women, critical for fathers and critical for our economy. This expansion will provide additional support to families and additional support to mums after childbirth, supporting them and their children's wellbeing while also encouraging dads and their partners to take more leave to spend more time in those crucial and critical early weeks, not just for that child but for that family and for their partner as well. I know that these changes will make a tremendous difference to families in my home state of South Australia as they make all those judgements and all those decisions about their little ones' lives—how much time they can spend at home, what that first year looks like for their families, what those few weeks and months in those early days look like for their families, how much time they can spend together as a family, and how much support they can offer each other. Nationally, over 180,000 families will benefit from these changes. I cannot overemphasise how much this means. As we all know, parenthood is a wonderful, beautiful, miraculous, life-changing gift. It is the joy, meaning and purpose of my life, as it is for any parent. But that doesn't mean it's easy for either mum or dad. And, crucially, in the weeks and months after the birth of a child, it can be incredibly hard. Many mothers have said to me that it's harder than the birth itself, and I would share that view. The need for care and support doesn't stop when a woman leaves the birthing suite, especially for those women who have experienced loss, trauma or the mental and health impacts that we know can come with bringing a new child into the world. Those needs can be acute, and the right supports are essential to have a healthy mother, a healthy child and a healthy family. That's why it matters so much to make sure that women have the space, the time and the financial support to have those early weeks and months with their children. But that's also why it matters that we do everything we can to change the culture to encourage more dads to be involved and present. It's not just a baby who needs caring for in those first few weeks and months; often it's mum, and it's also often dad. This is as much about the mental health, the physical health and the wellbeing of children and families as it is about economic participation. It truly is going to make a massive difference in the lives of South Australian families. As we debate this bill in the chamber, I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to what our inquiry found. The participants who submitted to our inquiry all broadly supported and welcomed the intent of this bill to expand paid parental leave. We know that in Australia women have similar levels of labour force participation to men until they have children. And then what happens? Collectively, women fall behind. They never catch up. As a committee, we heard from many submitters on the importance and urgency of parental leave reforms, particularly when it comes to women's workforce participation and gender equality. While the reforms received widespread support from submitters to the inquiry, the committee did hear suggestions to go further, and I acknowledge those suggestions. I want to emphasise that we are on a pathway of reform that started a decade ago that was massive and nation changing. There are reforms in front of us that are nation changing too. I want our ambition to remain high here, as I do across the spectrum of women's health, maternal health and women's economic participation. It is really important to acknowledge and reflect on the fact that this scheme is designed as a minimum entitlement. It's meant to complement employer provided leave. We want to change the system. This is part of that. We want more employers jumping in here, providing extra support where they can, because there's a benefit for them. There's an acute benefit for them if they provide generous schemes which allow them to retain their exceptional female talent and bring them back into the workforce in a well-supported way. That is a critical component of it. It's also really important that business remains involved in the administration of the scheme. This is the part of the scheme I think it is important to preserve. Particularly, Services Australia should continue the role it's playing and small businesses should continue the role that they are playing. This bill doesn't change the role of an employer in administering the scheme. The majority of submitters who commented on the administration of the scheme argued that the employer's role in administering it should remain unchanged and that paid parental leave should continue to be administered by employers, including small businesses. We know that employers play an important role in the administration of this scheme. It was in fact a key part of its design. When it was designed, the Productivity Commission said at its inception, and I quote, 'It's to normalise parental leave in the workplace, like any other kind of leave that the worker will take in their working life—something that we're all entitled to and can all access if we need to.' We heard from submitters like the SDA, who noted that changing the role of employers directly contradicts the objectives that the payment be viewed as a workplace payment rather than a welfare payment. The Equality Rights Alliance also emphasised the importance of maintaining the current administration arrangement by specifying that shifting it: … may undermine the goal of normalising PPL and encouraging employers to develop their own schemes … Administering PPL centrally through government could result in small and medium businesses viewing PPL as the business of government only. That is something we do not want. The overall evidence to our committee demonstrated that any administrative burden on employers is outweighed by the substantial benefits to employees and employers alike. For small businesses, it enables them to compete on a more even playing field with medium and larger businesses. That's a fundamentally good thing if you're a small business in Australia. We also heard that Services Australia provides a range of resources and support to help employers understand their obligations under the scheme. As a government, we want this to be easy for small businesses. We want this scheme to work for everyone. The work on that can continue in government. The work can continue as we legislate this bill, I hope, this week. But having that role for business in the administration of the scheme was part of its design, and it's part of what's going to make it work. It's part of what's going to lead to the broad cultural and societal economic changes we need to embed the idea that paid parental leave is valuable not just to the women and dads who take it and their children but for the economy and our productivity as a whole. We have to think about that in the design of the scheme. We have to think about that in the way we reform the scheme, because we're not just introducing new policy here, we're seeking to change behaviours and cultures which persist and pervade. I think it's a really important part of the scheme, which should stay. I whole-heartedly commend this bill to the Senate. This is a significant reform, which will have an incredible impact on the lives of mums, dads and children in my state. It'll have a big impact on the way our economy and businesses in our community all work together to advance women's economic participation and to take care of each other and take care of our most precious Australians in those critical early weeks, months and years. I know what it meant to me as a young woman when this was put on the table in 2011—how it changed the way I thought about my future, how it changed the way I thought about my career, what I could do, what I could achieve, what my economic future and security looked like. It did that in 2011. It changed a generation of young women's approach to their workplace, careers and families. With this reform, we take that a step further. A whole new generation of women gets to reimagine that in a way which they haven't always been able to before. We do these reforms; we spark change. Hopefully, by doing these reforms right, we change a broader culture, which will enable more to happen—more generous schemes across the private sector and more participation from dads in the early care of their babies and the early and critical care of their partners. I think they're tremendous reforms. They are part of a broader, critical package of work we must do not just to advance women's economic participation but also to support women's health objectives at that time of life, which, while beautiful, miraculous, and perfect as it may be, can also just be bloody, bloody tough. This will help them. This will make a difference there. And it's not just good for those women; it is good for their precious babies and their families. We know that when all of those things are working well—when women, their children and their partners feel supported—our whole country benefits from that. I commend the bills in their current form to this chamber. 12:12 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023, and, just as Senator Smith has laid out, I am one of the many women across our country for whom paid parental leave really changed my own parenting and my participation in the workforce, and it certainly benefited me, my children, my partner and my family. The Greens welcome the extension of paid parental leave and the scheme. Increasing availability of leave to 26 weeks is a positive step towards ensuring parents are supported in the crucial early months of parenthood and motherhood. Australian parents, at an absolute minimum, should have access to 26 weeks of paid leave to allow for recovery from birth, to maximise the chance of establishing breast-feeding, to cope with that intensive early parenting and caring and for the development of connection between parents and their infants. Extended leave provides the best chance of a good start for our kids in the early years and healthy patterns of shared care and good maternal health and wellbeing. But Australian parents should not have to wait another two years to get access to 26 weeks of paid leave, which is an international minimum standard. Supporting new parents and the wellbeing of children and advancing economic equality for women has to be at the centre of decision-making around paid parental leave in Australia. It's vital that the employer role in administering this scheme is preserved. There is extensive research from Australia's researchers about the benefit of maintaining and building the connection between a woman and her workplace at the time of birth and, vice versa, of maintaining and keeping that connection of the employer to their employee at the time of having children. Let's remember that all our businesses, including our many small businesses, are the beneficiaries of the reproductive work of women in the workforce. Without women having children, there is labour force of the future. We all have a contribution to make in supporting the reproductive work of new parents, and small businesses have a role to play. It's tiny, the administrative requirement for small businesses to pass on to women the payment taxpayers think those workers should get when they have a baby. It's an important part— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Sorry, Senator Pocock; we've reached the 12.15 hard marker. You'll be in continuance. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 30 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Taxation 30 12:15 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales After legislation passing this Senate unanimously—and after a protracted period of whingeing and confusion—1 July is now the date on which every Australian will receive a tax cut. Every Australian receiving a tax cut on 1 July is going to make a very big difference. Labor's tax cuts, in fact, will mean that all 13.6 million taxpayers will get to earn more and keep more of what they earn because of the leadership of this Albanese Labor government. That matters, because what the Albanese government has advanced and managed to wrangle through this very contentious Senate is an improvement in life—every time their pay comes home—for 2.9 million Australians who are not getting anything like what they were going to get under the previous plan designed by the Liberal and National parties. This support for every working Australian, who gets to earn more and keep more of what they earn, is vital for many Australians who are really doing it tough right now. The Albanese government knows this. We understand that change of itself won't be sufficient, but the combination of this change plus other significant changes we've brought in—a host of other policies and initiatives—will make a real difference. I note the contribution of Senator Marielle Smith from South Australia, who was just talking about the paid parental leave support that's going to change lives for Australians, and for women in particular, of whom there are so many on the Labor side. Our policies and plans have women at the heart and centre of them, and women are going to benefit significantly from the change in 13.6 million Australians' pay packets that will become real on 1 July this year. In the great electorate of the Riverina, 87 per cent of taxpayers will be getting back more of what they earn than they would have under the previous plan—an average cut of $1,425 a year. I know that 16 per cent of the workers in the electorate of Riverina are in the healthcare sector and the social assistance sector. That means that, for example, a nurse in Cowra earning $76,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $1,579. Like that nurse in Cowra, right across Australia there are 13.6 million Australians who are working very hard and paying their tax. They are Australians who don't do income splitting, who haven't got fancy tax schemes so as to skirt around their obligations. They get their salary and, every time they get it, money is taken out to contribute to the wellbeing and benefit of the nation. They pay their tax. They show up, they do their job with effort and integrity, they make small businesses successful, and they expect everybody else to shoulder their fair share of the burden as well. These are the salt of the earth Australians who deserve, who need right now, the extra cost-of-living relief that an Albanese Labor government is delivering, which will be real and present in people's lives as of 1 July this year. A bit further down the road from Canberra, as you head towards the west and the south, is the lush seat of Farrer. There, 76,000 taxpayers are receiving a tax cut, for an average tax cut of $1,359. Ten per cent of workers in Farrer work in the retail trade sector. That means that part-time retail workers in Albury earning $32,000 will receive a tax cut of $414 a year, and I know that is going to make a real difference in their lives and the lives of their families. Might I add that their local member, Sussan Ley, the member for Farrer, has been against these tax cuts that you're going to get on 1 July. She's been against them from the very beginning. She's promised to roll back the tax cuts that you're going to get. She's promised to roll them back to take your earnings and your return and reduce that, which will impact very negatively on working Australians. She's promised to make laws allowing employers to contact their workers up to 11 o'clock at night, perhaps even past that. Now, I'm not usually in the business of giving the Liberal Party and the National Party free advice—critique, yes, but advice, no. But going to an election threatening to tax people higher and allowing people's bosses to call them at midnight is not really an election-winning strategy, in my view. Frankly, it's absurd; it's certainly antiworker, and it's anti Middle Australia. Labor will always be the party of the working class and those who aspire to a great life in this country, and we're always going to help people when they need it. We have all Australians' best interests at heart. In sunny Hume, 86 per cent of taxpayers will receive a bigger cut than before. A truckie living in Goulburn who drives from Sydney to Canberra, hopefully a union member, earning $77,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,679. That truckie was an essential worker during the pandemic, making sure all the grocery stores were stocked and farmers were able to get their produce out. Truckies ensured that we had access to medicine, food and clothing when we needed it most, and the least we could do is to make sure the tax cuts that the Albanese Labor government will deliver will work for such hardworking frontline workers. In beautifully green and blue Lyne, which hugs the coast—great beaches, lots of koalas—nine per cent of the workforce are in the education sector. A primary school teacher in Forster, who might take their students to the new library that I opened last year, will get a tax cut of $1,679. Now, that is a big deal, and it will go a long way to helping those individuals and will help the community in which they will spend those dollars. More money will hopefully mean more money spent to improve things in the local shops, such as the shops in Dungog or the florist in Taree, or the beautiful new pub in Kew—a shout-out to the pub; I know how important that new renovated pub is to that local community, and thank you for your hospitality. Tax cuts mean a lot more than just a benefit to the individuals who receive them. The economic reality is that these dollars will move into local economies and support small businesses that provide goods and services there. In the vast seat of Parkes, where 62,000 people are going to receive a tax cut, 86 per cent of those people are going to receive a bigger tax cut than before, with an average cut of $1,465. That's going to make a big difference. A plumber in Broken Hill who's earning $70,000 will receive a tax cut of $1,429. That's more money in that plumber's pocket to spend on their family, at the local RSL or at one of the beautiful pubs down that main street of Broken Hill. Or it could be a new pair of shoes for the new year. It could be a membership in one of the local brilliant sporting organisations. It's a good thing for the people of Broken Hill that, in response to their reality, Labor has brought forward a package where, if you work and pay taxes, you will earn more and keep more of what you earn. In Calare, 60,000 taxpayers are going to be getting a bigger tax cut than they would have under the Liberal and National parties—an average cut of $1,532. In Bathurst, a New South Wales police officer on $110,000 will get a return of an additional $2,429. These tax cuts are a response to Australia and a great response so you earn more and keep more of what you earn. Albanese Government 31 12:25 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Not long ago, the Prime Minister completed another whirlwind PR tour of Western Australia—or, more accurately, Perth, given that's where he spends most of his time when he travels west. It was a visit out of the PMO playbook, part of a continued bid to project the idea that the Prime Minister is fond of my home state and a champion for its interests. This is a priority, because he knows how important WA is to his job security. But Western Australians are a genuine people, and we see these fleeting, city-centric, stage managed visits for what they are. We see beyond the social media posts and the marketing, which are plentiful, to the lack of results, which is now undeniable. What we really want to know is what the Prime Minister and his government, including his WA based ministers, have actually done to improve the daily lives of Western Australians. After more than 18 months, the record of this government is against them. It's not just the backflipping and failure to deliver on the big promises made prior to the last election. It's the fact the Albanese government is now directly undermining WA's future prosperity, threatening key economic sectors and livelihoods and contributing to cost and housing pressures. The live export industry is worth $120 million to Western Australia and has been a key part of our economy since well before Federation. Labor's plan to outlaw live exports would end all of that, decimating the multigenerational achievements of our farming communities across the state. That doesn't concern the Albanese government, which prioritises the views of animal rights activists and those in our inner cities over the hardworking efforts of Western Australians across its regions. The assault on farmers doesn't end there. Labor has pursued a levy forcing Australian farmers to pay for the biosecurity costs of international importers. It is, in fact, another tax for our farmers to have to contend with—a tax that comes at a time when they are already facing rising overheads, labour shortages and the ongoing effects of climate change. The Australian National University's Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, among others, has criticised this levy and outlined that it has not passed critical scrutiny. The damage being caused by the Albanese government goes well beyond jeopardising the WA agricultural sector. The resources sector—even more significant from an economic perspective both to the west and to our whole country—is also in the government's crosshairs. Labor's industrial relations overhaul, a gift to the trade union movement, is set to cost our mining companies dearly. BHP, for example, has outlined that the changes to the labour hire rules risk costing the company $1.3 billion a year. It's hard to argue with BHP's Australian president, Geraldine Slattery, when she said, 'The government should be making it easier, not harder, for Australian companies to succeed and grow.' The Albanese government obviously disagrees. Then there's the $10 million that has been gifted to the Environmental Defenders Office, which has targeted critical projects, such as Woodside's $16 billion Scarborough gas field. The oil and gas industry employs more than 120,000 Western Australians and provides tens of billions of dollars in state and federal royalties. These are royalties that fund our roads, fund our schools, fund our hospitals, fund the NDIS and fund other essential services. At this critical juncture, placing additional unnecessary obstacles in front of vital industries and projects can only be described as irresponsible and vandalistic. As if this all wasn't enough evidence of the ways Labor has let down Western Australia, there is also the unmodelled, unplanned immigration policy of this Labor government. Immigration has been at the core of Australia's national story and its economic success. But to ensure that success continues, immigration policy must be modelled with plans in place to manage its impact. These are not the characteristics of Labor's immigration plan, which will bring 1½ million people from overseas across just three years. Anybody looking for somewhere to live in Western Australia will attest that this policy is already putting significant pressure and strain on Western Australians. That's because, per capita, our population has grown more than any other state over the last year. During the same period, the average cost to rent a house in Western Australia hit $600 a week for the very first time. Rental availability shrunk to below one per cent, which is now the worst in the country. It might all seem a long way away to the Albanese government here in Canberra, but these are statistics with very real consequences for WA households. Housing stress now joins the list of economic pressures on Western Australians, the victims of Labor's continued mismanagement. Broken promises are becoming status quo under the Albanese government. The stage 3 tax cuts turnaround is the most recent of a litany of broken promises, but by far one of its most egregious. And there is so much more. One very simple one, given in its 2022 election campaign, was that Labor would back WA interests. Surely this included delivering the infrastructure our isolated and widely dispersed state relies on so heavily? But what has the Albanese government, in the form of its transport minister, Catherine King, done? It slashed more than $200 million from the Pinjarra Heavy Haulage Deviation and scrapped upgrades to the Mitchell Freeway, Reid Highway and Tonkin Highway. As a senator who often drives around the Kimberley region in the state's far north-west, the potentially life-saving improvements to the Great Northern Highway between Broome and Kununurra have always been a personal priority for me and a priority for the communities that live along that road. Those improvements are not a priority to Labor because it's axed that funding as well. It's not an overstatement that WA has always had to shout to have its voice heard in Canberra. My coalition colleagues and I continue to fight in this place and in the other place to ensure Western Australians have a loud, if not the loudest, voice. So anything that risks lessening that voice here is a significant concern to every Western Australian. That's why the electoral reform report produced by a Labor dominated committee last year, which included a proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from 151 to 200 seats, should be ringing alarm bells as most of those seats would be not in Perth but in Sydney, in Melbourne and in Brisbane. Under one scenario, WA would acquire only five extra seats and would be left with a total of just 20 compared with a possible 63 for New South Wales. This is not standing up for WA. This is not standing up for WA interests. It's quite the opposite. Labor's performance since winning government has been proof positive why our state, why Western Australia, requires a strong presence, a strong voice in the federal parliament. Earlier I mentioned Labor's record of delivering for Western Australia—or the lack of delivering for Western Australia. Each of the cuts, the cancelled projects, the broken promises, the anxious communities and families unable to find a home now form part of Labor's record for Western Australia. It's a record that confirms Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his Treasurer, Dr Jim Chalmers, are no friends of Western Australia. It's a record that demonstrates that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, are no friends of Western Australia. And, of course, the Prime Minister and Dr Chalmers have a line-up of WA federal members of parliament—members of the House of Representatives and senators—who are not willing to do anything about it. Many Western Australians placed their trust in Labor at the last election, believing the commitments that were made to them. But the Albanese government should be on notice. Western Australians are not likely to be fooled twice. As we rapidly approach the next election—increasingly tipped to be called early and not late—your failures will be front of mind for an electorate that will continue to cry loudly for a better deal from this Labor government. No amount of token good-news visits by the Prime Minister will change that. Queensland: Local Government Elections 33 12:35 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Saturday 16 March is the date of local council elections across my home state of Queensland. Ordinary people are struggling with the cost of living, rising rents and interest rates and a shortage of affordable housing, and yet they feel like politicians are designing laws that suit their own interests and the interests of corporate donors. But together we can change that. Almost half of Brisbane's 900,000 voters are currently represented by a Greens MP at the federal level. Since 2004 the Greens vote across Brisbane City Council wards has increased from 10.2 per cent to 17.8 per cent. This election, the Greens are on track to win anywhere between two and 10 wards. In many wards, we're only a few hundred votes away from getting Greens representation. Now, more than ever, every vote counts. The LNP have dominated Brisbane City Council for 20 years, and change is sorely needed. The Brisbane council have spent far too long putting profit before people. Last year the LNP, with the support of the handful of Labor councillors, voted to pass huge tax cuts for big developers. Only Greens councillor for the Gabba Ward Trina Massey voted against them. In the biggest coincidence of all time, less than one month after giving developers a big tax cut, the LNP announced that they'd also be cutting services and crucial infrastructure for the people of Brisbane. Anyone who has walked across Victoria Bridge, which connects South Bank to Brisbane CBD, in summertime can attest to the need for shade. Unfortunately, that vitally needed infrastructure was also cut to make savings for a tax cut for developers. Greens candidates are fighting to give residents a voice in what happens to their city. Unlike Labor and the LNP, we're not afraid to stand up to big developers. Paving over flood plains to build luxury penthouses is not sustainable development, and nor is being stuck in the past when it comes to public transport. The LNP have spent their entire time in power on council wasting billions on never-ending road-widening projects that make traffic jams worse, while neglecting public transport and cutting funding for safer pedestrian walkways, accessible footpaths and bike lanes. The only long-term solution to traffic congestion is making public transport a real and affordable choice for people and getting cars off the road. But, according to the current deputy mayor, traffic calming, pedestrian crossings and bike lanes are a radical agenda. We clearly have different definitions of the word 'radical', because I fail to see how making streets safer for people to walk or ride a bike on falls into that category. Change is sorely needed in Brisbane. Rents, mortgages and the cost of living are out of control, with more and more people seeking refuge from the housing crisis in tents in parks and along the river in our city. Governments at all levels have failed to tackle the housing crisis, and there are plenty of levers for local councils to pull to make things better for people who are struggling to find or to keep a roof over their heads. We've said it before and we'll say it again: unlimited rent rises should be illegal. We can free up rental properties by cracking down on Airbnbs. We can use rates to ensure that investors are disincentivised from using properties that should be homes as short-term accommodation. We can stop empty homes from sitting empty while people sleep in cars and tents. We can stop big developers 'land banking' to chase big profits and keep prices high instead of building homes. We can stop handing tax cuts to big developers and build homes that residents can rent and buy affordably. That's what Greens city council candidates are fighting for—for councils to actually help to fix the housing crisis and to take action on the climate crisis. We Greens have incredible candidates running right across the state. Starting in Brisbane City Council, former Greens councillor for the Gabba, Jonathan Sriranganathan, is our Greens candidate for Mayor of Brisbane. Jono's replacement as councillor for The Gabba ward, Trina Massey, is a proud queer woman. She's an immigrant of Filipino and African-American ethnicity. She's also an arts and creative industries administrator, a DJ and a renter. We desperately need more women in politics—women of colour, First Nations women, women with disability, older women, single mums, grandmas, young women and trans women. We need to ensure that all levels of government reflect the diversity and experiences of our community. I am so proud that our council candidates, both in Brisbane and throughout the state, are made up of a really diverse group of people, with so many women and people of colour amongst them. Seal Chong Wah is the Greens candidate for Paddington. She became active in politics after becoming frustrated with the government's lack of action on the climate crisis. I know that feeling. She wants to ensure that Brisbane City Council is doing everything possible to prepare for and protect our communities from the heat waves and floods that those of us who live in Queensland know all too well. She is an incredible woman of colour, a mum and a proud local advocate, and I know she would be brilliant as the councillor for Paddington ward. Michaela Sargent is another outstanding candidate who's running again in Walter Taylor after she came so close to winning it in 2020. She has worked for decades in international development, helping women and families, and she is running to win, and to continue the fight for better outcomes on development, local infrastructure and public space. The delightful Wendy Aghdam needs just 1,000 votes to win Central ward for the Greens. She is a youth mental health nurse who has worked with thousands of young Queenslanders and their families, helping them navigate complex systems during challenging times in their lives. The very gracious Bundjalung and Yuggera man David Ford has lived in the Holland Park area for over 40 years, and he is now seeking to represent that ward as a councillor. As a BCC employee, David knows firsthand the public services in our city and he understands just how important it is to maintain and expand them for people. In the ward of Coorparoo, midwife the incredible Kath Angus needs 300 votes to win that ward for the Greens. After the community's long and hard fight against the Gabba redevelopment, particularly the part of it that would have seen 130-year-old East Brisbane State School demolished, I reckon there's a real appetite in that area for someone on council who is on their side. In Enoggera, the impressive Quintessa Denniz is running as the Greens candidate. She's a woman of colour and a young lawyer who is a strong advocate for systemic change. Tiana Peneha is the Greens candidate for Northgate. She's a woman of colour as well and she has spent 15 years volunteering in her local community. In Morningside, Linda Barry is campaigning for better town planning. Her community is facing overcrowded schools, diminished green space, traffic congestion and a lack of public and safe active transport. She wants to be part of the solutions through community consultation. Bel Ellis is the Greens candidate for Wynnum Manly. She is a local bookstore owner, and she is running to make the bayside a better place to live and work. She has run a strong campaign already, and this area deserves that passionate representation. In Pullenvale, Charles Druckmann is the Greens candidate. He's an urban and environmental planner who could use that expert knowledge to great effect to help the local area and to shape a better Brisbane. River Kearns is the Greens candidate for Tennyson. As a proud nonbinary person with disabilities, they hope to use their experience of vision impairment and neurodiversity to shape a more inclusive and appropriate service delivery for our community. Representation for our diverse community really matters. Ann Aitken is our delightful Greens candidate for The Gap. She's a warm and intelligent woman who decided to stand for the Greens after seeing record temperatures and devastating bushfires in Australia and across the world. Andrea Wildin is the excellent Greens candidate for Calamvale. She has worked on interventions to prevent domestic and family violence and coercive control. Power to you, Andrea, on this much needed work. While many eyes are on the outcome of Brisbane City Council elections, the Greens are running candidates in Ipswich, Moreton Bay, Scenic Rim, the Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba and Townsville councils too. On the Sunshine Coast, the wonderful Tracy Burton is the Greens candidate for Sunshine Coast Division 5. Tracy has dedicated her life to caring for people as a nurse, as a local high school teacher for 20 years, and now professionally working in the disability sector. While the council in the sunny coast has allowed dodgy developers to have a free ride across the Hinterland, Tracy has spent years fighting for the environment to be protected and for communities to be heard. I have known Tracey for more than 10 years and I know that she will be an incredibly hardworking and effective councillor. Frankly, the people of the Sunshine Coast deserve to have more than one woman on council when there is 10 councillors. Our candidate for Ipswich Division 3, Danielle Mutton, has been a tireless advocate for her community, particularly in relation to the ongoing health and wellbeing issues posed by the local and toxic waste industry. Dani is a fighter and a hard worker. She'd be an outstanding councillor. At just 19 years of age, Benjamin Tiley, officially our youngest candidate, is seeking election in Townsville Division 9. On 16 March, Brisbane can kick out a LNP Brisbane City Council that's hell-bent on giving tax cuts and special deals to developers at the expense of local services, and replace them with people that will fight for better public transport, more affordable housing and better public services and infrastructure. Throughout Queensland, we can see even more Greens on councils giving residents more direct control to participate on the issues that matter to them. Wages 35 12:45 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The Albanese Labor government understands Australian workers are doing it tough right now. That's why it was encouraging to see the latest wage figures come through last week. The 0.9 per cent rise in the wage price index in the December quarter means wages were 4.2 per cent higher through the year—the equal fastest annual growth since 2009. For the first time since 2018 we've seen three consecutive quarters of real wage growth. And the gender pay gap is the lowest on record, down by 2.1 per cent since the government came to office. But, predictably, we read in the Australian Financial Review this week that wage rises are the main driver of inflation in Australia—and, of course, that's been reiterated by the Liberals and Nationals over the last week. Innes Willox, chief executive of the Ai Group, was similarly alarmist, expressing: … concerns over the direction of wages under the Government's new workplace relations arrangements. But neither Treasury nor the RBA believe there is a serious risk of a wage price spiral. The Secretary of the Treasury, Dr Steven Kennedy, said, 'There has been no evidence of a wage price spiral emerging' as recently as February this year, at the Senate Economics Legislation Committee when he was answering questions. The Reserve Bank board said: Wages growth has picked up but is not expected to increase much further and remains consistent with the inflation target … This is more representation of the facts than we are seeing from the Liberals and Nationals. The reason we're seeing this false dichotomy between improving wages and tackling inflation is: for the coalition, it's never the right time for real wages to rise. Former finance minister Mathias Cormann described low wage growth as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. More recently, the shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, said our industrial relations agenda will start a wage price spiral and damage the productivity of small and family businesses. Well, the facts don't hold up. What is factual is we are seeing real wage growth. What isn't factual is that the Liberals and Nationals have been arguing all week about the wage problems. The wage problem isn't when you can start turning around and paying your bills when you're getting paid extra; the wage problems are those that stand in the way of the cost-of-living relief Labor has put forward. We always know that the Liberals and Nationals are always for low pay. Rather than wages growth, experts point to price gouging and big business profiteering as the real cause behind domestic inflation. A recent report and inquiry into price gouging and unfair pricing practices, handed down by Professor Allan Fels, found that business pricing has added significantly to inflation in recent times. He identified: Not only are many consumers overcharged continuously, but 'profit push' pricing has added significantly to inflation in recent times— Particularly in supermarkets, banks and airlines, he went on to say. We understand Australians are getting slugged at the checkout by Aldi as well, and other big retailers. The government has clearly put out the line of fight to hold those supermarkets accountable for their pricing, and to make sure pricing is transparent and fair. Just last year we reviewed the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct dispute resolution provisions, and this year we've asked Dr Craig Emerson to review the code itself. We've increased the penalty for anticompetitive conduct and banned unfair contract terms. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if the price of meat, fruit and vegetables is going down at the farm gate then we should be seeing cheaper prices on supermarket shelves. We've established the competition task force in the Commonwealth Treasury, and they're already working on many of the issues raised in Professor Fels's report—merger laws and non-compete clauses, for example. We've consulted on prohibition against unfair trading practices and are considering stakeholder feedback. These are all important parts of the government's broader efforts to boost competition and put downward pressure on the price of essentials for Australians. The coalition, being opposed to real wage increases, think that it's right and fair to make hardworking Australians foot the bill for corporate profiteering, rather than positively contribute to our competition agenda. Senator Hume has used the cost-of-living committee to reiterate their opposition to our industrial relations agenda, which is seeing real wage growth. Our government sees strong and sustainable wage growth as part of the solution to the cost-of-living challenge—not part of the problem, as expressed by the Liberals and Nationals throughout this week. We've seen speaker after speaker, Liberal and National, in the Senate and in the House, say that the sky is going to fall in because workers are getting a real pay rise. Senator Cash said in August 2022 that our secure jobs, better pay legislation was going to return Australia to the Dark Ages and lead to more industrial disputes. So the story goes on. From 2022, we've seen it proved to be utterly untrue, because the ABS data instead points to 168,100 fewer working days lost to industrial action than the previous year. The coalition have voted against every measure to get wages moving and have now confirmed their workplace relations policy is, as Angus Taylor said on Insiders just in February this year, to 'take a targeted package of repeals to the next election'. The opposition's workplace relations policy is a targeted package against wage rises, against job security, against safer workplaces and against closing the gender pay gap. And of course Peter Dutton, the opposition leader, wants to end the weekend by forcing all workers to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week without a right to reasonably disconnect. Teachers at the Senate inquiry into closing the loopholes said that they were overworked and raised the alarm on digital apps that literally can create connections between parents and teachers 24/7. Police officers at the inquiry warned that the pressures placed on their members in their roles are so intense that the right to disconnect or disengage is absolutely essential. While these rights are already contained in some enterprise agreements, the Police Federation of Australia was clear that it would greatly welcome harmonisation across the country. An Essential poll found in February that the vast majority of voters believe that employers should be legally prevented from unreasonably contacting employees after hours. Employees and voters wanted a right to disconnect, but Peter Dutton has vowed to repeal it. There's not really a right they don't want to take off you, and there's not a right they want to give you, because they are the party for low wages. If there's ever an opportunity to cut the legs from underneath the community on paying wages, they'll be at it. If there's any way to oppose it, they'll oppose it, because that's what the Liberal Party and the Nationals are about—low pay, low wages and the inability to deal with the cost of living. The Albanese government is committed to making sure that more Australians are in jobs and that they're earning more, and with Labor's tax cuts they'll keep more of what they earn in their pockets. I'll say this quite clearly: throughout the debates on both the personal tax decreases and closing the loopholes, we've seen a consistent argument from the Liberal and National parties about middle class Australia getting it in the neck. That's because, when wages go up, they should be going down, as far as those opposite are concerned. When tax relief is given to middle- and low-income earners in this country, they constantly bemoan the fact that all Australians are receiving a tax benefit in this latest announcement. Quite clearly, this government has, at the forefront of its mind, making sure that middle Australians keep more of what they earn in their pockets from tax decreases and obtain fairer, real wage increases in the future to deal with the cost-of-living pressures that every Australian is facing. Veterans 36 12:55 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak in relation to the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and that cohort of former national servicemen who served in the Vietnam War, who were conscripted by law, did their duty and completed their term of service and who have been denied this medal because they did not serve in Vietnam for at least 181 days. There is a cohort of former national servicemen of some 2½ thousand who deserve this medal as a matter of equity, fairness and justice. This cohort of former national servicemen have been supported in this campaign by an outstanding advocate—a leader, Mr Richard Barry OAM, a former national serviceman from the 10th intake who served in Vietnam in 6th Battalion RAR. Other advocates have also joined this campaign. They include retired Lieutenant Colonel Bert Hoebee, who is with us here today, together with other supporters of this campaign, including veterans—my deep, deep respects. This cohort of former national servicemen are supported in their quest by our wonderful Australian Vietnamese community, many of whom are here in the gallery today, including veterans of the armed forces of the Republic of Vietnam. I pay my deep respects to each and every one of you. I also recognise the presence of Mr Andrew Wilkie MP in the chamber today. On 30 April 2021, I attended a Queensland Vietnamese community ceremony at the aptly named Freedom Place in Inala, Brisbane, to mourn the fall of Saigon in 1975. As is the case at every Queensland Vietnamese community event, the service of Australians who fought in Vietnam was deeply and movingly honoured. That occurs at every single Queensland Vietnamese event that I attend. It was in this context that senior members of the Vietnamese community approached me and asked that I advocate for this cohort of former national servicemen. Reflect on that: it was the Vietnamese community who approached me, not the former national servicemen. Since then, I have been advocating for the Australian government to issue this medal. I've been on this quest for only two years and 10 months. Mr Richard Barry OAM has campaigned for this wrong to be righted for decades. Progress was at last being made in the period leading up to the last federal election. I was informed that the then veterans' affairs minister and the then defence minister in the coalition government had both signed off on the issue of the medal. The matter entered into the whole-of-government process. I was advocating hard for it to be done before the last election. This was in the context where dozens and dozens of current and former parliamentarians, prime ministers, governors, veterans organisations and Vietnamese community organisations had all given their support to right this wrong. I have the list here. There are pages and pages of supporters, including senators sitting in this place, some of whom are around the Albanese cabinet table today. The then opposition spokesperson for veterans' affairs, the Honourable Shayne Neumann, issued a media statement on National Servicemen's Day, 14 February 2022. This is what he said: This year, Labor is calling on the Morrison-Joyce Government to formally recognise thousands of National Servicemen who fought in Vietnam with a Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal … …   …   … Labor urges the Government to give these men the recognition they deserve and finally allow them to proudly wear the RVCM when they march alongside their mates on Anzac Day this year. That is what Labor said before the election. So confident was I of the then opposition's support, of Labor's support, that I advocated to the former government that the issue of the medal could be resolved during the caretaker period, and I actually lobbied senior government advisers, in emails to that effect. It was not to be. The Hon. Shayne Neumann MP did not become the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Hon. Matt Keogh MP was appointed. After a further 18 months—18 agonising months—of further considering this matter, the minister declined to make a decision to issue the medal. I have here the letter he wrote to Mr Richard Barry OAM, saying: 'I decline to make a decision in relation to the RVCM.' Before the election, the Labor opposition called for the coalition to issue the medal. After the election, the now Labor government refused to issue the medal. It is shameful—just shameful! But it is not too late. There is still an opportunity to rectify this matter, to correct this injustice. How can it be, senators, that US veterans, serving towards the end of US involvement in the Vietnam war, could be issued the medal for 60 days' service, but our former national servicemen are denied? How is that equitable? It is unjust. It is inequitable. It is unfair. The Australian government should have fixed it back then, 50 years ago. It's not too late to fix it now. Senators, I ask each and every one of you to consider the words of former national servicemen who have been denied this medal. Consider their words. A former national serviceman who served for 148 days in Vietnam, in 104 Battery, 4th Field Regiment, said: 'On Anzac Day, I get called a "short-timer" because I do not have the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.' A former national serviceman who served for 170 days in Vietnam, just 11 days short of the 181 days, in 3RAR said: 'For many years, I wondered why I had not received the Vietnamese campaign medal. It seems I was a "short-timer". I've always felt embarrassed to have only one award for so many operations. I've never unboxed or worn that, or will any future awards.' A former national serviceman who served for 117 days in Vietnam in 5RAR said: 'I arrived in Vietnam on 8 February 1969. Over the next four months, we engaged with the enemy on numerous occasions, and I witnessed the true tragedy, horror and consequences of war in 117 gruelling and heart wrenching days.' And consider the words of the wife of a former national serviceman. We know the toll that veterans' service in Vietnam puts upon their families. These are the words of the wife of a former national serviceman who served for 141 days in Vietnam, in the 1st Australian Logistical Support Group. In an email to Mr Richard Barry, she wrote: 'My husband was one of the Vietnam veterans that was recalled at short notice after having served 141 days in Vietnam. We have always felt it was unfair that he was not awarded the medal. Not being awarded the medal has added to the feeling of inferiority when gathered with other Vietnam veterans. He is battling severe depression. His service was 141 days. And I met him at Sydney airport when he came home.' I have pages and pages of these testimonies, provided by Mr Richard Barry OAM. For over 50 years, these former national servicemen have been waiting for this injustice to be corrected. Consider the words of leaders of the Australian Vietnamese community. Mr Xuan Lam, the national president of the former ARVN and former Thu Duc reserve cadets association in Australia, who is here today, says, 'Being an officer in the Republic of Vietnam armed forces during the war, I know that our Australian soldiers had been the primary target for the Vietcong's attacks around the clock. They could have lost their lives at any time, and they did not need to wait for 181 days for such horrific physical harms to come to them.' Consider the words of Mr Cong Le, national president of the Vietnamese Community in Australia, who is here today: 'Our brave Australian soldiers have served in the Republic of Vietnam with dedication, gallantry and honour, irrespective of duration. They should be awarded the full RVCM.' In closing, consider the words of Richard Barry OAM: 'These men were compulsorily called away from their civilian careers to serve in the Australian Army. They fought in a foreign country in the name of peace and democracy at the behest of our government. These men are nearing 80. We owe it to them.' Gender Equality 38 13:05 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland It's ironic the Labor government are seeking to rush laws on doxxing through this parliament when they've just committed one of Australia's largest doxxings. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency published a list of 5,000 businesses across Australia and detailed the wages they pay their employees. Doxxing is the act of publicly providing identifiable information about an individual or organisation, usually with malicious intent. With the release of this report, these companies have been battered in national news headlines accusing them of huge gender pay gaps. The cries of the outrage brigade have been heard across the country. They claim that these evil companies have huge gender pay gaps and that the evil patriarchy is in full control, making sure no woman in Australia will ever get paid fairly. Make no mistake, the private information about these companies has been published for the purpose of whacking them around in national headlines; it's easy to see. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report is just a roundabout way of doxxing Australian companies, and taxpayers fund the agency $11 million a year to do it. I mentioned details at the beginning of my speech, yet the one thing that's actually missing from the report is detail. The figures don't make a fair comparison. Don't let the headlines fool you; this report is not a measure of whether a man and a woman doing the same job at the same company are paid differently. That's been illegal for decades. The report simply takes the median of total wages and compares them. No accounting is made for whether the men and women work in different jobs or whether they are in part-time jobs. There are no adjustments for overtime or seniority—the list of exclusions goes on and on. If a female air steward gets paid less than the male pilot up front, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will say that that's a gender pay gap at that airline. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report is one of the most oversimplified, flawed, misleading uses of statistics we've seen from government, and that's saying something! If we were to truly measure the impact of sexism on wages, we would look at men and women doing the same job at the same time for the same rate. A Harvard study entitled Why do women earn less than men? Evidence from bus and train operators did exactly that. Among men and women paid the exact same rates, they found the small wage difference was entirely due to the fact that men worked 83 per cent more overtime and were twice as likely to accept a shift on short notice. Fathers were more likely than childless men to want the extra cash from overtime. Fathers working harder to provide a better life for their children and their wives—that must be the 'toxic masculinity' the control side of politics, the so-called Left, complains about. In short, it comes down to choice. Men and women should always have the freedom to choose how they want to work or support their family. Given the option, they will choose differently. Norway is considered one of the most gender equal countries in the world, yet it has some of the most extreme policies with the intention of balancing out gender differences. Despite all of the incentives, Norway still has a 17 per cent wage gap, as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency would measure it, because women still choose jobs that allow them to take care of families. Of course, this agency report is the brainchild of the Labor government, bent on dividing women and men for political purposes. If we're too busy fighting each other about a gender pay gap that doesn't actually exist, then we're not going to pay attention to the real issues the government is sneaking through this parliament every day. The idea that women are only useful if they abandon their children and return to the workforce to be a cog in the economy is one of the greatest scams of New Age feminism. Instead of pretending everyone fits into one cookie-cutter shape, we should be acknowledging and celebrating differences. We should be supporting men and women to make the choices they want to make. We should be reforming the tax system to recognise the work that the stay-at-home parent, whether man or woman, does to build a family for the benefit of this country and for themselves. Imagine if we used some of the $14 billion a year currently subsidising day care to instead support families at home. One Nation will always fight for stronger supported families and for men and women to choose the work they want. Unlike the $11-million-a-year Workplace Gender Equality Agency, we'll always reject the divisiveness of gender politics, and we will always choose to celebrate our wonderful complementary differences. Renewable Energy 38 13:10 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland That's a new one for me. I didn't realise that it was One Nation's policy to scrap childcare subsidies. I'm sure there are lots of women in Queensland who'd be pretty keen to hear about that—oh, here we go. Senator Roberts 266524 I raise a point of order. Senator Green is misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that at all. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Green, perhaps you could— Senator GREEN 259819 On the point of order, I think that's a debating point. The Hansard will show exactly what Senator Roberts said. That's my take on it. I think that's a debating point and we can move on. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Green, you could perhaps go to your contribution, please. Senator GREEN 259819 Certainly; I'm very happy to. Just a few weeks ago, I was in Townsville with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen to announce that we are investing $70 million to develop Townsville's hydrogen hub. This is a huge project for Townsville and I am so proud of it, and I'm so proud of all the people in Townsville who have worked to achieve this goal. Construction on this project will begin next year and be complete by 2026, with commercial operations scheduled to start in 2027. This initial stage of the hub will produce 800 tonnes of green hydrogen per year. That's enough to fuel over 40 heavy vehicles a year. It will then ramp up to around 3,000 tonnes for domestic supply and, ultimately, 150,000 tonnes for export to the rest of the world. Not only will this hub, led by Edify Energy, produce tonnes of green hydrogen per year; it will also create 200 direct jobs—opportunities for local electricians, plumbers, fitters and concreters—during construction. As well as the ongoing jobs in technical and engineering fields, this is all about delivering good, solid and local jobs for the people of Townsville. Edify, with its partners, including Queensland TAFE, James Cook University and Townsville Enterprise, will work with industry bodies to provide education and training to ensure that Townsville's workforce have the skills required to develop and sustain the region's hydrogen industry. The Australian government's investment of $70 million is being met by a $27 million investment from the German government into Edify Energy. That is a vote of confidence from our partners across the world that we have something unique to offer—and that is our renewable energy jobs. That is something really to be proud of and I'm so excited to see this evolve over the next few years. This is happening while our government is busy delivering projects like this across the country. Townsville is just one chapter of our $500 million investment in hydrogen hubs in regional centres, including in Gladstone, which is also in Queensland, Bell Bay, Kwinana, the Pilbara, Port Bonython and the Hunter. These are projects that support Australia's future as a renewable energy powerhouse—because we understand that renewables are the cheapest and cleanest form of energy. I want to say that again because it bears repeating for those who may not be quite sold on renewable energy: it is the cheapest and cleanest form of energy. We are building these projects right now. While we're busy at that, what is the LNP's plan for energy in Queensland? They want to stop investing in job-creating projects like the hydrogen hub in Townsville and they want Australians to wait another decade while they start building nuclear power plants across the country, and that includes right next to the Great Barrier Reef. Yesterday, in the Courier Mail, the LNP said that they have sites in Central Queensland where would put nuclear power plants, including a site in Central Queensland which is also referred to as the 'gateway to the southern Great Barrier Reef'. Analysis shows that Australians would be lumped with a $387 billion cost burden if nuclear power was to replace the retiring coal fired power station fleet, and we would need a minimum of 71 small modular reactors to replace the fleet itself. Peter Dutton and the LNP like to talk up their record on the economy, but these figures are proof that the nuclear energy plan flies in the face of economics and reason itself. After nine years of energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a cheap, clean, safe and secure renewable future, all the LNP can do is promise a multibillion-dollar nuclear energy policy. They won't say how much it costs and they won't say what they would cut to pay for it. They are saying now that they are going to put it right on the coastline of the Great Barrier Reef. Our government is getting on with the job of investing in renewable energy right now, and we're getting on with the job of creating jobs in regional Queensland with renewable energy. That's what Queenslanders want to see, not a failed plan from the LNP. (Time expired) Tasmania: Just Like Jack 39 13:15 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I rise today to tell you about a very special young man from Tasmania called Jack. Jack has spent his entire childhood blazing a new trail for others like himself to follow. You see, Jack has spastic quadriplegia cerebral palsy. He can't walk, talk or eat independently but can understand everything you say—and he has a smile that lights up the room. I first met Jack alongside his parents, Chris and Erin, in 2009 when I worked at the well-known and highly respected Tasmanian childhood disability support service StGiles, which had been providing services to Jack since his birth. Chris and Erin approached me because they wanted to give back to StGiles and assist with raising funds for the organisation. Their proposal was a profound example of their love, empathy and commitment to their son and all special-needs families. You might think their proposal would be something ordinary—a sit-down dinner with dancing, or perhaps a trivia night. But no: Chris wanted to put Jack in a kayak and row from Launceston to Hobart via the east coast of Tasmania. Chris and Erin are amazing people. They have always been their son's strongest supporters and are selfless in giving their time and effort to provide him with many incredible adventures. Their passion and determination to provide him with an adventure of this magnitude prompted me to join the planning committee for what would become known as 'Kayak Jack'. With the assistance of the innovative staff at St Giles, a seat was attached to Chris's kayak, the route was planned and they were off. This adventure took Chris and Jack 13 days, and they successfully raised $70,000 for StGiles. That was just the first of many adventures for Jack in Tasmania. In 2015 Jack completed the 65-kilometre overland track over six days. On that occasion Jack was carried on his father's back and they were supported by a small hiking team, and they raised $30,000. A year later Jack completed the world's most challenging half marathon, the Point to Pinnacle, which is a difficult 21-kilometre run up Hobart's very steep Mount Wellington—this time pushed by his dad, Chris, in a running chair. Over the years since, Jack has competed in many other running races, like the Launceston 10km, the Burnie Ten and the Ross marathon. In their efforts to help other families like their own, Chris and Erin founded Just Like Jack, a charity foundation that uses their fundraising efforts to deliver funds, experiences and equipment to help improve the lives of children just like Jack. I was pleased to join the Just Like Jack crew at the opening of one of their major installations: an all-inclusive wheelchair carousel which was installed at Royal Park in Launceston, allowing children of all abilities to experience the exhilaration of play. They've also developed Movie Jack, the latest of which was at the Star Theatre in Launceston, with more than 50 Just Like Jack friends coming along to enjoy the movies. For some of these children it was their first time seeing a movie—imagine that; how very special. But why am I telling you these incredible stories about Jack? Well, this year Jack is turning 18—a significant celebration for such an impressive and inspirational young man who has faced his many challenges with such a positive and willing spirit. In true Jack style, the boy who has never been able to speak but has never had a problem being understood has announced to his parents that he'd like to wind up Just Like Jack in correlation with his 18th birthday. To do this, there will be a major black-tie celebration held in Launceston on Saturday 16 March, and it will be raising funds to go towards Jack's final project, the We-Go-Swing. Just Like Jack was started to help Jack and other children like him to live their lives to the fullest. I can say with certainty that his parents, Erin and Chris, and his siblings have delivered on that commitment. I have been proud to support Jack, his parents and the charity Just Like Jack since I first met them approximately 15 years ago. Throughout that time, I have been in awe of this family, who strive every day to make this world a better place and make a more inclusive community for those living with a disability. Now it's time to close this chapter of Jack's incredible journey and wish him well for his adulthood. I would especially like to thank all those who have joined Jack on this journey, including the many friends and community members who have been involved, the volunteers and, of course, the sponsors and financial supporters. It really has been an incredible achievement. To Erin, Chris and, most of all, Jack, thank you for putting ourselves into the public eye and sharing your story for all children who live with a disability and for making this world a much better place through your efforts. All the best for a long and happy future, Jack. Kerr, Mr Joshua 40 13:20 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Last week the coronial inquest into the death in custody of my first cousin Josh Kerr finished. On the weekend, Donnis Kerr, Josh's mum, published a powerful and heartbreaking piece about Josh in the Saturday Paper. I want to share some of her words with you, and I encourage you to go and read the full piece: The last time I saw my son, Josh, he was in shackles. He'd been let out of prison on leave to attend his Uncle Bruce's funeral. After the service, as I walked him back to the police van, he stopped to cuddle everyone, and I thought, Is he gonna say goodbye to me or what? Before he got in the van, he turned to me. "I love you, Mum," he said. "I love you, too, son," I said. "I'll see you when you come out." "Yeah, Mum, I'll come home." We had the biggest cuddle. Those were our last words. …   …   … Everybody Josh met, he touched. He and his sisters— Maggie and Pat— had a strong bond; they would sit down for hours, just yarning. He adored and doted on his children. He was a social butterfly made for life. He loved his art. …   …   … When Josh was born, I was young and living in crisis accommodation at Margaret Tucker Hostel. I kept him for eight months—as long as I could—and then he went into the out-of-home care system. It ripped out my heart. …   …   … When he was older he came to me one day hurting and angry that I wasn't there to raise him. I told him the reason: "I wasn't brought up with a mum and dad, Josh. I was part of the Stolen Generation." Like Josh, I was brought up in the system. I was taken at the age of two and raised by 100 staff. … So I never knew a mother's love or what love was; I was never shown how to be a mother. Because of that, I couldn't take care of my son. …   …   … The day I told Josh about all this, at first he didn't comprehend it. He came back a week later and said, "Mum, I don't blame you anymore." The both of us broke down crying. He said, "Now I understand." Josh entered the system as a baby. Thirty-two years later that system took him from me forever. His children will now grow up without their father. Their trauma will be that their dad died crying out for help as prison staff ignored him. This is the trauma the system creates, that flows through families, from generation to generation. …   …   … … the chain reaction that starts when our kids are taken from us and ends with more Black deaths in custody, more kids without parents set on the same path … …   …   … … with nearly 600 Black lives taken since the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody … …   …   … Governments— including this one— still refuse to implement the recommendations of the 1991 royal commission, or the recommendations of the 1997 Bringing Them Home report. Yet you still have Sorry Day and have your morning tea. The article goes on: … not one person has ever been held responsible or accountable for a Black death in custody. Not one person. …   …   … When does it end? Ninety-seven per cent of us you wiped out. Are you trying to wipe the rest of us out? The article goes on: How many more babies do we have to lose in the system for things to change? …   …   … Josh loved his family. Every time he got out of custody, he'd come straight home to sit down with us and have a yarn. Now, whether we get justice or not, my son is never coming home—that's the raw reality. It says further: If we get justice for Josh, it will make history and hopefully change history's course. But we can't have a government like we have today which continues to wave the Aboriginal flag—you wear your Aboriginal flag on your T-shirts and your Aboriginal flag earrings and all your designs when you don't care about the amount of children in the system. You don't care about deaths in custody. Your own Attorney-General said to me during the referendum, 'Just be happy I gave you one recommendation of counting the bodies coming out of these prisons.' He wanted us to be grateful for counting in real time deaths in custody. Shame on you, Labor, and shame on the native police. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 41 13:26 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria This week is great week for common sense. Why is that? Because the Queensland Supreme Court has ruled that vaccine mandates imposed on police officers and health workers were, indeed, unlawful. The judge ruled that the Queensland police commissioner had not properly considered the human rights of employees before she made receiving the jab a condition of their ongoing employment. I, of course, celebrated the police commissioner's decision to resign last week perhaps in anticipation of this landmark victory. The Supreme Court is right, obviously. We all know that. How on earth did state premiers and chief health officers ever imagine that threatening and forcing people with the loss of livelihood if they did not submit to become the state's pincushions to be injected with an experimental and untested concoction, of which the long-term effects are still not known, was not a breach of their basic human rights and was somehow okay? It was not okay. It was a violation of one of a liberal society's most basic principles: bodily autonomy. Now that the Queensland Supreme Court has said as much, my hope is that the people who were adversely affected, whether through job loss or adverse reactions to the experimental mRNA injection, will get justice. An apology from the government would be a start, but compensation would be even better. The outrage is that this court ruling would not have happened if it were not for the UAP and our founder, Clive Palmer, who personally funded this court case. How can we claim to live in a free country when victims of government overreach have to fund their own search for justice? As well as opening the floodgates for compensation to those affected, the Queensland Supreme Court decision proves once again, as if proof was even needed in the first place, that there must be a royal commission into Australia's pandemic response. The Prime Minister's weak and toothless and, frankly, pathetic COVID inquiry is a disgrace. It is an insult to the millions of Australians whose basic civil rights were trashed by governments across our land. People have died as a result of these draconian measures enforced by leaders during the pandemic. People have sustained lifelong injuries and lost their jobs, their marriages and relationships for good. Those in authority divided Australians and ignored human rights. The Prime Minister must give us our royal commission. State premiers and senior health officials need to explain on what basis they violated people's human rights, and, depending on where the evidence leads, there should be and there must be prosecutions. We will never forget what happened in our country during the pandemic, and those who imposed draconian, authoritarian, tyrannical measures on the community absolutely must be held to account. Those of us who stood up for our human rights were marginalised, abused and bullied. We were told that we were grandma killers, less than human and irresponsible. As long as the UAP has a presence in this place, we will never give up on justice for Australians who were emotionally bullied, financially crippled and physically harmed by the outrageous and, frankly, draconian pandemic response, which was not based on any science whatsoever. When justice is done it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Before I proceed to two-minute statements, I remind senators not to use mobile phones in the chamber. Senator Faruqi, mobile phones are not to be used in the chamber. It's disruptive when senators are speaking. Parliament House 42 13:30 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Walking around this building, one could be excused for wondering what sort of alternative Australia they'd walked into. The Australian parliament is the legislative body of the Commonwealth of Australia and the building housing those employed and elected to represent the interests of all Australians. From Bundaberg to Townsville, this building is meant to be the most representative building in the land. Why then does walking around this building feel quite like it could possibly be the least representative building in this land? The reason is that this building is populated by the hard left at the moment. Whether it's a woke politician, someone who works for a woke politician, a woke lobbyist speaking to woke politicians, or a woke journalist writing favourable stories about woke politicians, in 2024 this building has as much in common with the real Australia as the ABC headquarters at Ultimo. The truth is that this has happened because we let it happen. If you ever want to answer the question of how this country has gone so far off the rails in the last two years, come to Canberra, walk around this building and see for yourself, or do yourself a disservice and listen to five minutes of some of the nonsense coming out of this chamber. By the way: just like Chuck Norris, that's a two-minute statement in 60 seconds! Taxation 42 13:31 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I will just take a moment to compose myself after that contribution. Senator Antic 269375 You could learn from it! Senator GROGAN 296331 Highly unlikely. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those opposite for one of the most spectacular backflips I've seen in my time in this place. But, when we cut through all of the political games, the grandstanding and the carrying on that we've seen over the last couple of weeks, the final decision on the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts was absolutely the right call to make, one that is in the best interests of Australians. Let's just remind ourselves exactly what this decision means for a moment. We're talking about a tax cut that is fairer. We're talking about a tax cut which benefits many more Australians than would have benefited under the previous government's tax cuts. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GROGAN 296331 I commend my colleagues over there for playing a little bit of tax bingo. Well done. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Order, everybody! Senator GROGAN 296331 We will see a total of 13.9 million taxpayers get a cut. 13.9 million? Tipping up your bingo scores there, boys! That will also include 90 per cent of women. That's got to be a great outcome in this country in the situation that we are looking at at the moment, with the cost-of-living challenges in front of us. This government, the Albanese Labor government, is doing more and more to assist those people to deal with this crisis. There is so much more I could say about the work that we're doing. The tax cuts are a thing now. Thank you for finally coming to the party, those across the table. Middle East: Occupied Palestinian Territories 43 13:33 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Israel is deliberately starving Palestinians. Michael Fakhri, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, said the denial of food is a war crime and constitutes a situation of genocide. In Gaza, 2.2 million people are facing severe food shortages, and many are on the brink of famine due to Israel's genocidal chokehold. In Rafah, where Israel is now focusing its genocidal mission, five per cent of children under two are acutely malnourished. In Newcastle, some very courageous children have written directly to the Prime Minister, and I would like to read their letters. One wrote: Dear Prime Minister, I am a Palestinian child. In my country they don't have water, food and electricity. All of the people lost their family members and friends. All of them are losing body parts and DREAMS! We must make a ceasefire and end the genocide! This is another one: Please help palestine right now people are dieing we need to hurry before it's to late. You might think because I'm a kid rwiting to you that it doesn't meen anything, but it means more than you would think so please help. And the last one is: Dear Prime Minister I am writing to you about the palestine situation. In palestine, thousands of palestinian people are getting killed per week. I am wondering why you aren't doing anything about it?' So, Prime Minister, why aren't you doing anything? Do these people not matter? Do you not see them as humans? Tasmania: Salmon Industry 43 13:35 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The salmon industry in Tasmania is a very important contributor to the Tasmanian economy and a great source of protein for a range of people across the globe. Unfortunately, this industry is under threat at the moment—would you believe, Acting Deputy President McGrath—because the Australian Labor government is hanging that industry out to dry. It has enabled a group called the Environmental Defenders Office, which it funds, to lodge a request for a review of permits that it issued in 2012 under then environment minister Tony Burke. It's very disappointing, and this process has dragged on and on, despite the calls from a number of Tasmanians, myself included, and the Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff. We have asked the government to hurry up and provide certainty to the community about the future of their jobs—jobs, which I might add, are in a sustainable industry, no matter what the anti brigade says. We don't have to take the Premier's word for it—or mine, for that matter. Perhaps Kade Wakefield, the Assistant National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union is someone that the government might like to take note of. He said: The government has been dragging its heels on this review but at the end of the day Tanya Plibersek will have to decide what she thinks is more important: the livelihoods of blue collar regional Tasmanian families or the overblown concerns of inner-city activists about a fish they've decided to make famous. Or perhaps they'll listen to the mayor of the West Coast, Shane Pitt, who said: I urge Minister Plibersek and the Prime Minister to think about the people here on the West Coast. It's cruel to let the kids and the families start the school year with this hanging over their heads. We are well into the year; it's almost the end of February and this Damocles sword still hangs over the heads of the people in this community on the West Coast of Tasmania and this industry. This government, supposedly the friend of the worker, is doing nothing. So at this state election, I hope Tasmanians remember which side of politics supported this industry and which side of politics stands up for workers; it is not the Australian Labor Party. Kerrigan, Mr David, OAM 44 13:37 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Today I want to take a moment to speak about a great Queenslander, David Kerrigan, who was recently awarded the OAM for his service to volunteering, his work in social welfare organisations and his passion for regional rugby league—and don't we all have a passion for that? I am fortunate enough to know Dave, or 'Kerro' as he is more fondly known, who has been a Barcaldine local for over 40 years. There he sees firsthand the different struggles that western Queensland communities come to face in their daily lives. Kerro understands the importance of Queensland's regions and what they contribute to our economy. He knows it's vital for investments to be made in local manufacturing and other industries in our regions to keep jobs local and to keep towns thriving. He's a fierce advocate for rural health, in particular mental health, and the struggles that come with remote life, including housing availability and secure jobs. Dave is a passionate volunteer and fundraising leader at the Australian Workers Heritage Museum, which brings vital tourism to the region. He's also a proud presenter at the Tree of Knowledge, the birthplace of the Labor Party—just don't tell those Labor Party members from Balmain! He gives his own personal tours of the Tree of Knowledge from time to time, which I've had the privilege of being a guest at when I first came to the Senate. Kerro also taught me how to shear my first sheep, but that's a story for another day. I cannot think of anyone more dedicated to their region and more deserving of this award. Again, I want to say a very big congratulations to you, Kerro, on the award of an OAM. Good on you, mate, great job! I look forward to working with you in the future. ASEAN-Australia Summit 44 13:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Next week the 11 leaders of countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will arrive in Melbourne for the biannual ASEAN Summit. Hundreds of delegates will be shuttled around Melbourne at taxpayers' expense. One Nation welcomes meetings like ASEAN that encourage countries to be good neighbours, and One Nation supports spending only what's necessary to achieve a good outcome. As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting will get through copious amounts of luxury food. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media. What really got my attention is today's Australian newspaper, with an article stating that the Prime Minister has required all vehicles provided to delegates to be electric. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, electric Comcars are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. Comcar staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne. Why put on this tokenistic superficial show of fealty to the globalist electrification agenda at all? In the last few weeks, we've seen leading car makers do a U-turn on plans to sell only electric cars due to low demand, low profit and escalating scarcity of materials. In fact, despite heavy subsidies, last year in Europe EVs accounted for only 14 per cent of sales. Australia is half that. Insurance premiums are skyrocketing as damaged EVs prove very expensive to repair—one reason EVs lose value at twice the rate of cars with internal combustion engines. They're lemons. The amount of minerals and energy needed to make, maintain and recycle electric vehicles is so high that EV stands for 'environmental vandalism'. One Nation would like to know how much this exercise in virtue signalling is costing our Australian taxpayers. Lismore: Floods 44 13:41 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Today marks the two-year anniversary of Lismore's worst flood on record. Five people unfortunately lost their lives, over 4,000 people lost their homes and numerous businesses in the CBD were wiped out. The incoming Albanese government promised much, but two years later unfortunately recovery is far from progressing. The $800 million Resilient Homes Program, funded by the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments, originally identified 2,000 homes eligible for buyback, retrofitting or raising. Today, we know less than a thousand will have that offer met, with no plan for the other thousand homes located on flood plains. There is no plan for businesses located on the flood plain. There is no plan for the Lismore CBD. Two years on, for those rendered homeless, finding a place to live remains the biggest challenge for these traumatised communities. The $150 million committed by the then coalition government for risk reduction and mitigation has funded projects unlikely to prevent or reduce the impact of future floods. Communities like Lismore pride themselves on their resilience and ability to cope with disasters, but many are frightened that recovery and housing won't come in time for the next flood. To mark the two-year anniversary, Resilient Lismore has organised a gathering by the river for the community to reflect on the challenges it has faced and the journey still to come. I congratulate the Lismore community for its toughness and its patience, and I hope more is done soon. Dunkley By-Election 45 13:43 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria This weekend is the Dunkley by-election. The loss of Peta Murphy has been felt deeply in this place. Peta left a great legacy behind. She was a champion of her local community, and I'm so glad I've had the opportunity to spend time with the wonderful Jodie Belyea, who is working so hard to continue that Labor legacy in her own way. Jodie is a fantastic woman. She's a fighter for her community. She's lots of fun and she is a Frankston local through and through. The Senate passed our cost-of-living tax bills last night and from 1 July, every single Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut, including 70,000 taxpayers in Dunkley. The teachers at Frankston High School will get a tax cut. The staff at Seaford Primary School will get a tax cut. The nurses at Frankston Hospital will get one too. The hospo workers on Young Street will get a tax cut. The retail workers at Bayside Shopping Centre will get one too. Every single worker will get a tax cut on 1 July. Importantly, this includes every single woman worker—100 per cent of taxpaying women across Australia, including 100 per cent of taxpaying women in Dunkley. We are delivering better outcomes for women, something that I know Jodie cares about so much. Her good friend Peta Murphy did too. Dunkley, I know that Jodie will be a fantastic local member and representative for you. She cares for her community and she's willing to fight for it. Jodie, we are so excited for you. I know that you're going to make us all proud. Northern Territory: Water 45 13:45 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia The following statement is from the Ali Curung community regarding the Singleton Station water licence: We are saying no to the removal of our water. The Northern Territory government is using forceful and deceptive tactics to give Fortune Agribusiness our water. We don't want to give out the water. It belongs to the land. It is the most precious resource in the world that they are trying to take away from us. We don't want that. We need to stop the Singleton Station Water License. We need to stop the Northern Territory government from granting the water license to Fortune Agribusiness. Leave this water alone, it is from the beginning. It is from the creation time. We don't want money, we just want to protect this water for everybody … Water is scarce in the desert. We really need water for the future generations. The water license will have a big impact on the land. If the water level drops, it will soon produce salinity. It will be bad for the health of the people. Water is life and our lives matter … This water license will cause the biggest damage the Northern Territory government will ever create and there will be no way to fix it. Once water is gone, it is gone. It will be us mob who are going to suffer in the end, us mob who are really living on this land … We are saying no. If you destroy this land, it is just like you are ripping a page out of a story book and the story is not there to tell for the future generations. We need water for us and for our animals, for turkey, emu, kangaroo, cats. Don't leave us with no water. We will fight to keep our water. It is for the lives of everybody who lives here in Ali Curung. That's our strong message to the government. Do not … take this water from us. We need it. We want the Federal Government to step in and work with us to protect our water. We are all saying no to Singleton Station Water License. Vandalism 45 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Yet another Captain Cook statue has been vandalised in my home state of Victoria. Masked idiots, claiming that Cook the explorer was responsible for colonisation, used an angle grinder to cut down his monument in Fitzroy Gardens. It didn't matter to them that Cook was an explorer, not a coloniser, nor did it matter that Cook died nine years before those aboard the First Fleet ever set foot on Australian soil. On the path beside the fallen Cook statue, they spray-painted the words, 'The colony must fall.' In other words, these activists believe that Australia must fall. They posted a video of their seditious behaviour on social media, urging others to join them in their horrendous behaviour. But it's worse than horrendous; it's seditious. It's treasonous. These activists are urging the overthrow of our nation, and they are happy to trash the joint in pursuit of their goal. It's time we got serious with these scumbags. Can you imagine any other country tolerating these people or putting up with their behaviour? You know what? I'd be in favour of corporal punishment, done in public, to shame and humiliate these louts. There is no better, freer or more generous nation on the planet than this one right here. We ought not to tolerate being white-anted from within. If you are working for the overthrow of our country, as these activists by their own admission are, then you should be punished severely. You know what? Flog them in the public square. A previous generation might have done that and, if we have any self-respect left, that's exactly what we should do to these ungrateful louts as well. Antisemitism 46 13:49 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise today to speak about the troubling increase in antisemitism in our nation. Antisemitic behaviour is on the rise around the world, sadly, and Australia is no exception. We are a country of incredible tolerance, and it saddens me that this sort of hatred has been perpetuated and, in some horrible cases, accepted. No group of people should fear for their safety because of their religion. When a New Zealand mosque was the site of an unthinkable massacre in 2019, people of all faiths came together. People created human shields around mosques to ensure that Australian Muslims felt safe to pray and express their faith. That is the reaction we should have had in Australia after the terrible events of 7 October, yet Australia's Jewish community has instead been subjected to fear and persecution. I have seen images of spray-painted slurs and calls to kill Jews. I've read the stories, as I'm sure many of you have, of Jewish families telling their children to hide their true identity and of 13-year-old girls being assaulted. I've read quotes like 'I am going to blow a hole through your synagogue and bring back Hitler to finish the job.' Disgraceful! Let's not forget, just a few days ago, when a Jewish man was trying to attend a town hall meeting and was physically assaulted by anti-Israel protesters. The Victorian police should have arrested his attackers but instead forcibly removed him for breaching the peace. This is unacceptable behaviour in our country in 2024. Universities: Student Placements 46 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Australian universities accord: final report has backed in what I said six months ago: university students should be paid to do a mandatory placement. If people have to put themselves into poverty to study, if they can't afford to pay their rent or buy groceries, then they'll drop out, and they're dropping out of courses where we have critical workforce shortages like nursing and teaching. The accord report recommends that governments should fund placements for nursing, care and teaching professions, and public and private employers should fund placements in other fields. It's great they've recognised that something needs to be done about it, but I don't think this recommendation is the way to go about ending unpaid student placements. It's the most expensive way to do it and it will just waste taxpayers' money. If this were a test, they would get an A for effort but an F for execution. This recommendation would see students pay for their placements, regardless of their financial situation. You might think that that makes sense, but does a student from Sydney's northern beaches with a trust fund really need taxpayer money to make ends meet? We can't have people dropping out of study because they can't pay their bills, but we also can't break the budget to do it. It's not an endless money pit. We need to make sure help is targeted to where it is needed the most. The accord report also doesn't point out that universities are profiting off placement units when students are in classrooms. Along with the real-time financial burden placements put on students, they're also adding thousands of dollars to their HECS debt. It puts them at a disadvantage now and at a disadvantage when they have to put it off down the track. This isn't something that should be overlooked. I'm glad that unpaid student placements are on the agenda and that the government seems keen to make changes, but we have to make sure these changes help those who need it most, without blowing taxpayers' money up the wall. Camp Sovereignty 46 13:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Today I want to talk about Camp Sovereignty, whom I spoke to this morning. Camp Sovereignty is a place of resistance on what is known by the colonisers as Kings Domain. It has been a place of cultural significance for our people for millennia. It was re-established on 26 January this year, the day of mourning. The Black GST, focusing on genocide, sovereignty and treaty, originally established Camp Sovereignty in 2006 to highlight these fundamental issues. It was established by my mum, Marjorie Thorpe, Professor Uncle Gary Foley, Uncle Robbie Thorpe, and Targan and Clare Land. It was during the stolen-wealth games. The irony of so-called 'Commonwealth' does not apply to First Peoples. We are still fighting for basic equality. Since 26 January, a sacred fire has been burning on these significant grounds, representing the continuing presence and ongoing resistance of our people. Camp Sovereignty is a place for First Peoples to gather but is welcoming to all. It's a place for community, healing and culture. Places like this are needed more than ever in this country. Data shows imposed government models like the one we have here continue to fail our people. Community led and driven initiatives have better outcomes, especially when they come from respected elders and experts. I stand in solidarity with my uncle Robbie Thorpe, who has promised to stay at Camp Sovereignty to continue the resistance until the land is handed back to its traditional custodians, its true sovereigns. The sovereignty here is not real. We are the true sovereigns, and we want our land back. Taxation 47 13:55 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales One of the many consequences of having elected this government is that there are more taxes—more taxes than were promised at the last election. We have seen a litany of broken promises in relation to personal income tax and also superannuation. One of my favourite exemptions in the super tax is the exemption that the Labor ministers have given themselves from the application of a new tax on super. The new tax on super won't apply to Mr O'Connor, to Ms King, to Senator Wong or to the Prime Minister. We know that because, when Senator Gallagher was in the Senate estimates chair only two weeks ago, we asked the government how this would apply, and their answer was, 'We don't know, and, because we don't know, we'll come back to you in a future year and tell you how it will work for us.' The hilarious thing here is that the government has issued a tax that will apply to all Australians where it applies, but it won't apply to the politicians in this building. It is an amazing case of hypocrisy. The Australian people hate that about politicians: they are prepared to make rules for everyone except for themselves. In this case, the Prime Minister is exempting himself from this new tax. He's effectively saying to his minister in the future, 'You make the regulation that might apply to me in the future.' So he is exempting himself and asking his underling to make the rules for him. It is a disgusting display of hypocrisy, one that we should not be surprised about. It is one that the Australian people will judge the Labor Party on very harshly, because it's one rule for everyone else and an exemption for the Prime Minister and a handful of ministers. Natural Disasters 47 13:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Today is the second anniversary of the devastating floods that hit the Northern Rivers of New South Wales after hitting South-East Queensland in the days before. Having been to the Northern Rivers countless times since then, I know it's going to be really difficult for people in the region today. My thoughts and the thoughts of the Albanese government are with the survivors of that disaster today. We're still thinking of them, and we're still working for them. Only last week, I was in Sydney meeting with New South Wales government ministers about how we can keep moving on the recovery effort. Billions have now been committed to help the region build back better. We're at a point now where 721 offers of home buybacks have been made, of which 562 have been accepted and 309 completed; the others are working through the system. We're committed to supporting more mitigation and resilience work in the Northern Rivers region to reduce the effects of future flooding disasters. That includes upgrades to local flood warning infrastructure, investing in our Northern Rivers Recovery and Resilience Program and delivering our signature disaster ready fund. With climate change increasing the severity and frequency of disasters, we are again faced today with the threat of serious bushfires in Victoria and South Australia. As of 1 pm today, all fires are burning at a 'watch and act' level or below; however, the worst of the fire weather is ahead of us. It's not too late to make sure that local residents are taking action to keep safe. Conditions across South Australia and Victoria will be extremely dangerous today. If you live in any of the areas where there is an extreme or catastrophic weather forecast, please take action now. If you wait for a fire to start, it may be too late. We've moved the National Large Air Tanker water bomber to South Australia to assist, and we've been working with states, territories and the National Resource Sharing Centre to provide interstate support as required. I encourage everyone in the affected area to stay across the alerts from local authorities and stay tuned to emergency broadcasting on their local ABC. Natural Disasters 47 13:59 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I want to take note of the ministerial statement just made during what should be two-minute statements. As shadow emergency management minister, I appreciate the update from the minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Davey. The time for contributions has expired. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 47 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Parliamentary Standards 47 14:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 Earlier this morning I indicated to the Senate I would come back at a later time and make a statement about adjournment last night. I intend to do that now. Some of the conduct in the Senate during the adjournment debate last night was appalling. It is appropriate that I remind senators about the rules and practices connected to the open-ended adjournment. It is the practice of the chair to follow the speakers list for the adjournment debate wherever possible. It is impossible to do that when the senators on the list are not in the chamber when an item commences. This is what happened last night. None of the senators listed to give five-minute speeches were in the chamber when the debate commenced at 7.30 pm. The Acting Deputy President, Senator McGrath, quite correctly went to the list for 10-minute speeches. The interpretation of the rules for the open-ended adjournment has always been that, once we've started 10-minute speeches, any senator can then speak up for 10 minutes. The chairs on duty last night each sought to apply that interpretation, although they also encouraged senators to make shorter speeches where possible. I thank them for doing so in the face of some unruly conduct. I want to make the following observations. It is never in order to yell at the chair or yell over the chair when the chair is attempting to maintain order. It is never in order to yell at other senators, and it is never in order to yell over the top of another senator who has the call. Senators will not receive the call while they persist in disorderly conduct. I draw the attention of senators to reports of the Procedure Committee relating to the conduct of the adjournment debate, particularly the first report of 2017—which followed the work of a procedural working group comprising senators representing the parties and the crossbench and which provides guidance on the conduct of Tuesday night adjournment, including the speakers list—and the first and second reports of 2013—which outline the establishment of the graduated time limits contained in standing order 56(6). I take this opportunity to once again remind senators that we are all responsible for our own actions in this chamber. Thank you, senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Dunkley By-Election 48 14:02 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. Andrew Clennell at Sky News has today reported that he is in possession of leaked government focus group images connected to the Dunkley by-election. Some of the slogans on the images read: 'While Albanese is doing anything else, your grocery bills are more expensive,' and 'While Albanese is doing anything else, petrol prices are going through the roof and he's doing nothing about it.' Will the Prime Minister admit his own government's focus group material perfectly sums up the appalling record of this government? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Henderson for the question. It's great to see, in the Parliament of Australia, during question time on Wednesday, when the opposition can ask us about anything, they have gone, in the first question, to some document supposedly relating to research by a political organisation. Senator Henderson asked me a question around the Dunkley by-election. It is an important by-election this Saturday. We have an excellent candidate who's running a great campaign down there and who was hand picked by the late Peta Murphy. What an incredible act of graciousness for her to be looking forward to who is a suitable replacement for her in the seat of Dunkley. Whilst you might get obsessed with stories from Sky News, Senator Henderson, we are focused on delivering for Australia, whether that be in our cost of living— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING You don't want to hear about that! Senator Henderson ZN4 President, I raise a point of order, on relevance. I'm asking about the government's own focus group material, if the minister could address that question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, the minister is being directly relevant to your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Henderson, I can't confirm some document that you have heard about on Sky News. What I can confirm is that the tax cut legislation that passed this parliament last night—unanimously, I might point out—delivers a tax cut for every taxpayer in Dunkley. They now have certainty that 90 per cent of women taxpayers in Dunkley will get a bigger tax cut. Young people in Dunkley will get a tax cut. Senator Cash I0M What about petrol prices and grocery prices? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm merely reflecting the decision of the Senate last night. We are delivering tax cuts and cost-of-living relief. You opposed our investments in energy; you opposed our investments in child care, urgent care clinics, health— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, a first supplementary? 14:05 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, the focus group material also contains the words: 'Anthony Albanese has the wrong priorities. He's wasted a year talking about his Voice referendum or spending time overseas.' Will the Prime Minister admit that his own government's focus group material is a completely accurate reflection of the PM's conduct since being elected? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm not going to call the minister until there's silence in the chamber. I have just given a statement about unruly behaviour. 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory What I can confirm—and I work very closely with the Prime Minister—is that he spends every minute of every day working for the people of Australia. He remains focused on doing the right thing for the right reasons. He will put people before politics. Senator Henderson just confirms again what this opposition is like. They'll always go the politics—always. It's their default move. It's the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton's, leadership that means they will always go into the gutters, talking about the politics, not about the things that matter for the people of Dunkley. The government are focused on making their lives easier by relieving cost-of-living pressures where we can, without adding to inflation—I note that you haven't asked me a question yet on inflation; I hope it's coming. We are making sure that those tax cuts get delivered on 1 July, with an excellent candidate in Jodie Belyea, who will continue the amazing Peta Murphy's legacy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, a second supplementary? 14:07 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, the focus group material also contains the words: 'While Albanese is doing anything else, rents are going up,' and, 'This by-election, send Airbus Albo a message.' Does the Prime Minister agree with his own government's focus group material and that the voters of Dunkley should send him a message this Saturday? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Senator Henderson confirms yet again what we know of this opposition: always out there to divide; always out there to stoke the bear; always there to go for the politics, never the issues that matter. I'm confident that the people of Dunkley will recognise that this government has focused on meeting all of the pressures that households are dealing with today. Whether it be investments in Medicare, whether it be dealing with the energy transition, whether it be generating jobs, whether it be managing inflation, whether it's about the getting the budget back in shape, whether it's about rebuilding Medicare after you guys ruined it— Senator Henderson ZN4 I raise a point of order on relevance. I'm asking about the message: rents are going up. Could the minister please answer the question in relation to this messaging. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Henderson. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you for the prompt, Senator Henderson. That is why we invested in historic amounts of Commonwealth rent assistance to provide relief. That's why we've invested $25 billion— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, withdraw that comment. Senator Cash I0M I withdraw the comment. Senator GALLAGHER ING That is why we've invested $25 billion in addressing some of the housing shortage that we have inherited from a decade of a government that couldn't care less about housing for Australia. (Time expired) Taxation 49 14:09 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last night the Albanese Labor government delivered on its commitment to give all Australian taxpayers a tax cut from 1 July by passing legislation with unanimous support in this Senate. As a result all taxpayers in my state of Victoria will get a tax cut on 1 July. Can the minister outline what the unanimous vote of this Senate will mean for Australian taxpayers and how the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts will provide tangible relief to struggling households, in addition to the other cost-of-living relief measures delivered by this government? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question and for the role she plays in supporting and adding to the government's economic policy. On 1 July this year the Albanese Labor government will deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer; that's 13.6 million people. Our No. 1 priority is addressing inflation and cost-of-living pressures. We know people are doing it tough, but our tax cuts will deliver a bigger tax cut for Middle Australia to help with that cost of living. This builds on our targeted relief while not adding to inflation. Already we have delivered electricity bill relief, which those opposite opposed. We are making medicines cheaper, which, again, those opposite opposed. We are making it easier and cheaper to see a doctor through much-needed investments in Medicare. We are making child care cheaper and expanding paid parental leave. We are building more social and affordable homes and increasing rent assistance. There are our fee-free TAFE investments, and wages are rising at the fastest rate for a decade, including for minimum-wage and aged-care workers— Senator Ruston 243273 Real wages? Senator GALLAGHER ING and, yes, Senator Ruston, we have had real wages growth. Of those, 3 million people—we've done that as well. Eighty-six per cent of taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut than they would have got under the plan Scott Morrison legislated five years ago. In Tasmania, around 280,000 people will get a tax cut. In Western Australia, it's about 1.5 million. In South Australia, it's around 900,000. In New South Wales, it's 4.3 million. In Queensland, it's around 2.8 million. They are all getting a tax cut thanks to the Albanese Labor government and the tax changes that passed this parliament unanimously— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I know you don't want to talk about it—last night. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 14:12 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Minister, as we know, many Australians are still facing cost-of-living pressures and the inflation challenge is not over. Today the release of the monthly inflation data showed that CPI was 3.4 per cent through the year to January, unchanged from December. Can the minister please outline the economic challenges that meant this tax cut plan was the right decision at the right time? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the supplementary. The economic conditions remain challenging, with lingering inflation due to pandemic related supply chain disruptions, the war in Ukraine and global uncertainty from the conflict in the Middle East. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I know you don't want to hear the facts. Despite the challenges facing Australians, the Albanese Labor government has the right economic plan to ease cost-of-living pressures on households, to navigate those challenges we face and to maximise the opportunities for the year ahead. Today's CPI results show that we continue to make welcome and encouraging progress in the inflation challenge, and that the government's policies are helping. But it is not 'mission accomplished' because people are still under pressure. The cost of living and the fight against inflation remains our highest priority. But the ABS statistics have shown that our cost-of-living plan is helping to directly reduce inflation across the economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:14 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria This morning, the shadow minister for finance said that the Liberals and Nationals would 'go back to the drawing board'. Minister, how will Labor's tax cuts plan provide more benefit to Australians facing cost-of-living challenges when compared with the former Morrison government's plan? 14:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the supplementary, and we did hear those comments from the shadow minister for finance this morning: 'We will have to go back to the drawing board.' Well, one thing we know is that you can't trust the Leader of the Opposition on tax. We know that when last— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING We remember that he was the minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallager, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt! Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING That's right. When we first announced the revised tax plan, remember that it was going to be rolled back? It was going to be abolished. Remember there was a call for an election over it? 'Let's call an election.' And then what? 'Oh, actually, no, it's okay. We may vote for them.' We know you can't trust Peter Dutton; you can't trust the Leader of the Opposition. Senator Birmingham H6X You can't trust the PM. Everybody knows that. Senator GALLAGHER ING We remember the GP tax. We remember him saying that there were too many free services on Medicare. We know what this means—cuts to services and a rollback of tax. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I'm going to ask you to withdraw your comment, and then I invite you to ask your question. Senator Birmingham H6X I withdraw, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Immigration Detention 51 14:15 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher: News reports today show that earlier this month immigration minister Andrew Giles personally intervened in an immigration detention matter to release a convicted criminal who had deep affiliations with the Australian Labor Party. Mr Safwat Abdel-Hady was initially convicted for spiking drinks with intent to commit an act of indecency, which, on retrial, become a conviction on a lesser charge. He was convicted of multiple assaults and subjected to an apprehended violence order. He was also a close associate of former prime minister Bob Hawke, and in 2013 was granted a visa under the then Labor government, despite failing the character test. Why did Mr Giles personally intervene to ensure that Mr Abdel-Hady was treated differently to the NZYQ cohort and was released without monitoring and curfew conditions? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Senator Ruston, yes, we do try to get together and think about what questions might be asked. We do prepare. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Senator GALLAGHER ING We take this seriously. But can I say— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, I've called you several times already during question time. I'm asking you to listen in silence. Senator GALLAGHER ING I can confirm that this individual is not part of the NZYQ cohort. We continue to take every possible step to deport people who have no right to stay in this country. The matter is currently before the court, so I won't be going into any individual matters, but I do draw the Senate's attention to the comments of the judge in the most recent hearing, who said: 'There appears to be a very fixed view on the part of the minister to be rid of this man.' He is right. I would also point out to the chamber that those opposite had five years to remove this individual and, surprise, surprise, they didn't do it. The opposition leader not only holds the record as the worst health minister in 35 years; we have now had three reports by three eminent Australians—former public servants—who have uncovered and highlighted the system of neglect and maladministration that existed in it the Home Affairs portfolio under his watch. While he would have you believe he was the tough cop on the beat, these three reports say otherwise. They show a failed migration system full of problems. They uncovered the significant abuses of sexual exploitation, human trafficking and other organised crime. Dr Parkinson found that it was a deliberate decision to neglect the system and that it was so badly broken it required a 10-year rebuild. That was the finding of Dr Parkinson, and I could go on, because the opposition's record in this area is full of failure. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:19 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Contrary to what the minister has said, the Department of Home Affairs warned that Mr Abdel-Hady was likely affected by the High Court's decision in the NZYQ case. But, instead of him being released under the strict visa conditions of a bridging visa R, he was released under a bridging visa E. Why did Minister Giles choose to intervene and choose to give him a more lenient visa, and has Minister Giles intervened into any other cases that he is keeping secret? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would remind the chamber—and I don't have the quote in front of me—that I recall the Leader of the Opposition drawing to a journalist's attention that the immigration minister is the most litigated minister in any government. So there are always a number of cases underway which involve the minister for immigration. In terms of the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, this matter is currently before the courts, so I am not going to go into individual matters and individual circumstances. I would say that the minister is seeking to deport this individual and, again, that there were five years for this to have been done—to remove the individual. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, his visa got cancelled, Senator Henderson, as I understand it, and he has been in detention. And we're seeking to remove him, but you didn't do it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary. 14:20 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Indeed, in 2017 the then immigration minister, Mr Peter Dutton, did cancel Mr Abdel-Hady's visa. And yet this week, the now immigration minister, Mr Giles, has put him on a visa that lets him back out on the street without strict conditions. Does Mr Giles or the government know where Mr Abdel-Hady is now? And how long will he now be in the Australian community because of Minister Giles' decision? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Senator Gallagher, I am going to wait for silence, particularly on my left. Minister Gallagher. 14:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't accept the proposition that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has just put to me. The matter is before the court. I would draw the attention of those opposite who are now frothing at the mouth about this to the fact that they did nothing for five years. Five years! Five years—nothing. For five years you did nothing, and I would also say, and I can quote— Opposition senators interjecting— The 10000 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order! Please continue, Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. To use a quote from Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, 'I'm not going to comment on individual cases,' okay? As I said in the quote, it's a reasonable position: This is a matter before the court. … there appears to be a very fixed view on the part of the minister to be rid of this man. And the judge is right. Economy 52 14:22 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. Minister, you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that some corporations in Australia are engaged in profiteering or price gouging. However, at Senate estimates a couple of weeks ago the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ms Bullock, agreed that some corporations are using a lack of competition and the cover of high inflation to hike prices above what is required to meet increases in their input costs. Ms Bullock joins the growing consensus among economists, including at the OECD, the IMF, the central reserve bank, the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the Australia Institute and former ACCC chair Mr Alan Fels that corporations are price gouging to boost their profits in a cost-of-living crisis, which is making inflation worse. Will you finally accept the truth? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I reject the interjection from Senator Ruston. I know it's unparliamentary, but I just want to put on that record. Thank you, Senator McKim, we've had quite a lot of discussion about this over many years— Senator GALLAGHER ING Sorry, President, it's quite distracting, with Senator Ruston's constant— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator ING It is! The PRESIDENT 112096 I have called Senator Ruston to order a couple of times— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING She said it— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Whilst we want companies to be profitable in this country, because that's good for the economy and good for jobs, we also don't want anyone to be ripped off. That's why we, the government, are looking at our competition policy, and the work that's been done by Dr Andrew Leigh, but also the work that has been commissioned by the Treasurer—particularly the ACCC inquiry—and the work that Dr Craig Emerson is doing, in terms of the grocery code, to make sure that the settings are right and that we are protecting consumers' interests. I think we've all been to the supermarkets and the shops and seen price escalation, and the government is concerned and wanting to make sure that our settings are right, which is why that work is being undertaken. But I don't agree that it's as black and white as you believe. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I don't want to misquote the governor, but I don't believe it's as black and white as you would argue, Senator McKim—that it's all about companies doing the wrong thing. I think there are a number of inputs into inflation. We are mindful of our responsibilities to act where we can, and I think those reviews that have been ordered by the assistant to the Treasurer and the Treasurer are a good way of monitoring that, and making or acting on— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, a first supplementary? 14:26 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, people are skipping meals, as food and grocery prices skyrocket, while Coles and Woolies report billion-dollar profits. The ACCC has said that divestiture powers would increase competition and lower the cost of food and groceries. The Prime Minister recently dismissed divestiture powers as a Soviet Union policy. Is the Prime Minister aware that that well-known command-and-control economy, the United States of America, has had divestiture powers for over 130 years? (Time expired) 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm not aware of the Prime Minister's—in relation to the specifics of the question, I can't answer that, but I can answer that we, the government, are not looking at divestiture powers at this stage. That is not in our thinking. As to the reviews that are being sought or put in place, the ACCC is a highly effective organisation that has strong consumer backing. It has strong powers. It has the ability to call for information, as you know from our discussions with the chair of the ACCC at estimates. I think we should await their work—alongside the work that Dr Emerson is doing and the work that Dr Andrew Leigh is leading, through the government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, a second supplementary? 14:27 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, over the last decade, Labor has taken over $100 million in donations from corporations—many in industries that are highly concentrated and currently under fire for price gouging—including from the supermarket duopoly. Corporations do not give money away for nothing. Are those donations the reason Labor is refusing to consider divestiture powers which would create the power to break up price-gouging monopolies and duopolies like the supermarket corporations? (Time expired) 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I said yesterday, there isn't a question that the Greens political party can't add political donations to, in this chamber! It's quite a skill to make every single issue in public policy related— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim! Senator GALLAGHER ING to political donations. We— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator McKim— An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 and, I believe, Senator McKenzie—although I will apologise if it wasn't you shouting out. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Right. I'm calling the chamber to order. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING We have electoral laws in this country. We have donation law in this country. Political parties—all of them, including yours, I presume—abide by those laws. But to suggest that, because there are political donations, that has consequences in all the areas that you raise, every single day, is simply not supported by any evidence, and you never ever bring in any evidence to support the position. It's just about besmirching and smearing and trying to take some sort of moral high ground. If you're going to push this, actually deliver and bring in the evidence to support it. (Time expired) Taxation 54 14:29 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to Minister Watt, representing the Minister for Youth. We know that    the cost of living is one of the biggest concerns for young Australians. Last night the Senate passed Labor's tax cuts, a plan that will benefit every Australian taxpayer. Minister, how will Labor's tax cuts benefit young Australians and ease their cost-of-living pressures? 14:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Payman, who, as well as being a highly effective senator, is a young senator and a recently married senator. So congratulations, Senator Payman, on your recent marriage. We're all very happy for you. The Albanese government is delivering for young Australians, building on the first budget surplus in 15 years to responsibly ease cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation. Because of our policies, Australians are earning more, with real wages increasing, and keeping more of what they earn thanks to Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts. That includes more than three million Australians aged between 18 and 29 who will directly benefit from our tax cuts. In fact, with Labor's tax cuts now having passed the Senate, 98 per cent of young Australians will now get a bigger tax cut than they would have had under the plan put forward by the opposition. Last year, we undertook nationwide consultation with young Australians on the issues that matter most to them. We ran 58 consultations, reaching thousands of young people across our communities. This consultation reaffirmed that the issue of cost of living is front of mind for young people right now. We are responding decisively to what we have heard to ease the pressure facing young working Australians. The 1.5 million young taxpayers between the ages of 18 and 24 will now receive an average tax cut of $1,007 a year under Labor's tax plan. A further 1.6 million taxpayers aged 25 to 29 will receive an average tax cut of $1,573 a year. These tax cuts are good for young people, they are good for Middle Australia, they're good for the economy and they're very different to what we saw on offer from the opposition. Unlike the former government, we are listening to young Australians and we're responding swiftly to what they are telling us is most important to them. We're investing in housing, we've lifted rent assistance, we're lifting wages and now we're delivering tax cuts as well. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:32 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia We know the No. 1 issue for young people right now is cost of living and that many young Australians are making difficult choices to balance study, work and everyday living expenses. How will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts ease cost-of-living pressures that young people are facing and put more money in their pockets? 14:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Payman. Our government knows that no young Australian should have to make the choice between work, study and paying their rent. That is why we're acting to provide responsible cost-of-living relief. A young person juggling part-time study while working, earning, say, $30,000 a year, will receive a tax cut of $354 under Labor's tax plan. Under the opposition's plan, they would have got zero—absolutely nothing. Cutting taxes for Middle Australia is a central part of our economic plan, along with getting wages moving again, bringing inflation under control and driving fairer prices for Australian consumers. Under Labor, wage growth is double what it averaged under the Liberals and Nationals. The Liberals and Nationals spent a wasted decade in government keeping young Australians' wages low, a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. Mr Dutton has consistently opposed cost-of-living measures, and he wants Australians to work longer for less. Time and time again, he has shown that he can only say no, dividing all Australians. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:33 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia This morning, the morning after the Senate passed Labor's tax cuts, Senator Hume promised that, if elected, the Liberals and Nationals will go back to the drawing board on tax cuts. Why is it important that young Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn under the Albanese Labor government's plan? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm going to wait for silence before I call the minister. 14:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Payman, you are absolutely right. We want young Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and Labor's tax cuts will help make that happen. They'll make a real difference to young people's lives right now. But what is the coalition position? It just keeps on changing. Yesterday, I mentioned that shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor had revealed he is targeting the workplace protections we have delivered for young and older workers. Now Senator Hume has let the cat out of the bag, too. She told Sunrise this morning, 'We will go back to the drawing board on tax cuts.' Oh, Jane, you've done it again! Talk about letting it slip. Of course, it's exactly what Mr Dutton and Ms Ley have been saying as well for the past month. They were opposing it. Then they were going to roll it back and then they let it through. Senator Hume has made clear that 'it's back to the drawing board when it comes to the tax cuts'. They want to rip money out of the pockets of young people in places like Frankston, while cutting their pay and conditions at the same time. You can't trust the opposition. They always want young people to work more and earn less. (Time expired) COVID-19: Vaccination 55 14:35 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. This week the Queensland Supreme Court found that measures relating to COVID were mandated on a number of Queensland workers—in this case, police officers and ambulance workers—without adequate consideration of their human rights, as required under the Queensland Human Rights Act. Clearly, this failure is not isolated to Queensland, given that the Queensland government's approach was applied through the National Cabinet, of which the Commonwealth is a member and the chair. Minister, does the Prime Minister accept that vaccine mandates were the National Cabinet's mistake? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I am aware of that court case which has been recently handed down in relation to vaccination for police and ambulance workers in Queensland. This is a decision of a Queensland court that relates to a vaccine mandate that was a decision of the Queensland government. The government's position on COVID-19 vaccinations is that they are voluntary, as are all vaccinations in Australia, although we do encourage vaccination and aim to have as many people vaccinated as possible. I would say that there is no doubt of the success of the vaccination program in Australia, and the number of Australians who got vaccinated, particularly in those early waves, protected millions of vulnerable Australians, including Australians in aged care, Australians who had a disability and immunocompromised Australians, who were protected— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick! Senator GALLAGHER ING by the fact that we were able to manage— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Rennick, I have called you to order, and you continue to shout out. This is not your question. It's Senator Roberts's question, and the minister has the right to be heard in silence. Minister, please continue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Rennick, I have just called you to order, and you continue to completely disrespect me and not follow my direction. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The public health advice on vaccinations remains very clear. That advice is that vaccinations prevent seriousness of disease—the level of illness that you get—and it prevents hospitalisations, which allows our health system to deal with other health issues, as it's always meant to. Vaccination protects people from serious disease and death. So, from the government's point of view, if you're due for your COVID-19 booster, go and get it, but it is voluntary and, obviously, people will make that decision for themselves. I would also say that, when state governments were having to deal with maintaining services and protecting employees in a pandemic—in an emergency—they made some very, very difficult decisions to protect their communities. National Cabinet supported that, and we support that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, do you acknowledge that human rights were ignored as part of the Commonwealth's response to COVID? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I note the court case and the decision that has been made. I think in times of emergency—a one-in-a-hundred-years pandemic—decisions that state governments and the Commonwealth government took were difficult and, as is always the case with human rights, they balanced up a range of factors when landing on making those decisions. That is always the case. Human rights are not absolute. They are seen in balance, and I think governments did what they believed was in the best interests of their communities in protecting Australia, whether it was the border closures, vaccines, closing schools or having lockdowns. With the benefit of hindsight, people will always argue whether or not those decisions were right, but I think the decisions were made in the interests of the community. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 14:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, does the Prime Minister agree that only a royal commission has the resources and the powers to fully deal with the legal consequences from this failure to respect human rights? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As Senator Roberts knows, we have an independent panel that's currently undertaking the COVID-19 response inquiry. They will bring together the knowledge from all the existing reviews. A number of reviews have been done in the states and reviews have been done in the Commonwealth, in addition to about 200 previous relevant inquiries, and will make recommendations. That panel is independent. Senator GALLAGHER ING I presume Senator Rennick and others that you are making submissions to that. I am sure you're involved, and I'm sure that the panel will consider your submissions seriously. We believe that because of the number of reviews that have been held and the time frames involved the independent panel that is being commissioned by the Prime Minister will provide us with good recommendations going forward if there are any further areas we need to address. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order on my left! I have constantly had to call many of you to order over and over again. Question time is the opportunity for the person who's been granted the question to ask the question and for others to listen in silence. There are other opportunities for you to make your contribution. This is not the time for them. Migration 56 14:41 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. At Senate estimates earlier this month the Department of Home Affairs confirmed that between 7 October and 31 December the department granted 2,127 visitor visas and an additional 148 migration and temporary visas to people with Palestinian identity documents. An ABC report on 9 December last year said that some visas were being processed in less than an hour. Can the minister confirm that adequate security checks were conducted on all of the individuals from Gaza who were granted visas? 14:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Paterson. The short answer to Senator Paterson's question is yes. And I note that this is not the first time this question has been raised by members of the opposition. In fact, what they are doing is raising questions about a process that is exactly the same under this government as it was under the former government, when Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister. So, it seems that a process that was okay for Mr Dutton in terms of how visas were approved for people overseas is now not good enough to be applied by a Labor government, done in exactly the same way as it was by Mr Dutton. The fact is that under this government, just as under the former government, all people applying for visas, no matter where they're from, are required to undergo security checks. This has been the case under all governments. But what we're seeing from the opposition is an attempt to whip up fear about Palestinian residents being granted visas, if they are seeking to come here, under the same process that was applied under the former government. All this is showing is that yet again the opposition will use conflict overseas—absolutely devastating conflict, where we have seen tens of thousands of lives lost—to whip up fear and seek to generate conflict in our community, even over a process that is exactly the same as it was when Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister himself. Figures that have come from the Department of Home Affairs show that when Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister he granted more than 500 visas each week to Syrians fleeing the country in 2015, with a total of more than 12½ thousand visas granted. The former government also approved 5,000 temporary visas for Afghans in just over one month in 2021. The same security agencies performed the same security checks on those visa holders as the checks that have been performed for just 2,273 visas granted to Palestinian residents over 17 weeks. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, a first supplementary? 14:44 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria On 22 February Sky News reported that one of the individuals granted a visa and already living in Australia expressed support for the horrific terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October. How is it that this person was granted a visa if sufficient checks were supposedly conducted as you have just said? 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's almost as if there were a close relationship between the opposition and Sky News, based on the questions that we've had here today! We know that all of you beat the door down in order to beat each other into the Sky News studio 10 times a day. Hello, all of my friends in Sky News! You're obviously now drafting questions for the opposition—a bit of a promotional campaign for Sky News from Senator Paterson and his colleagues. But, again, the point is that the process that is being used to grant Palestinian visas is exactly the same process that was used when Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister and when he approved visas for people coming from other conflict zones around the world, places like Syria, places like Afghanistan. I think it is clear that not only will the opposition do whatever it takes to whip up fear in the community but they will also go on the attack against our national security agencies, because we rely on the advice of national security agencies in making these decisions, and that's not good enough for the shadow home affairs minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:45 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria What assurances can the minister provide Australians that no more Hamas supporters have been or will be let into Australia on your watch? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Paterson. The assurance I can give all Australians is that the Albanese government relies on the advice of our national security agencies in making decisions like this, in making decisions about visas that are granted, respecting our national security agencies and the advice that they provide, rather than trying to play politics with national security matters, which is something that, let's face it, Mr Dutton has done his entire political career. He only has one trick, and that is to whip up fear based on national security matters, whether they're right or whether they're wrong. He thinks nothing of using our national security agencies and their personnel as political pawns in his game. We, on the other hand, actually respect our national security agencies. We have confidence in them to make the right decisions and provide the right advice. Coming into the chamber before running into the Sky News studio, which you'll all be racing to do straight after question time is over—that's what the priority for the opposition is, rather than actually treating national security agencies seriously. For a man who says that he treats national security seriously, I'm surprised by Senator Paterson. (Time expired) National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People 57 14:47 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Minister Gallagher. Two weeks ago your government announced it will establish a National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People to help finally achieve progress under Closing the Gap. Target 12 under Closing the Gap concerns removal of First Nations children. The solutions on how to reduce child removals were presented in the 1997 Bringing them home report. Currently no entity holds responsibility for overviewing the implementation of the report recommendations. Is the new commissioner intended to be responsible for this overview? 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Thorpe for the question. I will come back with further information if I'm not able to fully answer the question that you've asked. The commissioner's work will be focusing on reducing the number of children in out-of-home care, strengthening families and keeping children and young people safe. An interim commissioner will begin work midyear. Resourcing is obviously being provided for that. As you say, there have been a number of reports into child protection since the Bringing them home report in 2007. I think the feedback that the Minister for Indigenous Australians has is that First Nations people want action, not more reports. So this is a very significant announcement, to have a commissioner. Certainly in the years that I was involved in child protection and in out-of-home care— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 Relevance. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is that your point of order? Senator Thorpe 280304 Are the recommendations going to be used as part of the commissioner's role? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Thorpe. The minister is being relevant, and she also undertook, if she wasn't able to fully answer your question, to seek further information. But she is being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER ING I will come back to Senator Thorpe if there is more information than I am able to provide her today, but one of the points I made was that there have been a number of reports, including theBringing them home report, which have a number of recommendations, and certainly I would believe there's an expectation that the commissioner is looking at all of those recommendations, and that would inform the work that needs to be done. This is an area that has been fraught for a long time, the issue generally of child protection across the community but particularly for First Nations children in out-of-home care and how to provide appropriate support to them and their families and put in arrangements to support them as best as they can. I know that from experience, being a child protection minister for a few years. If there is more that I can provide, Senator Thorpe, in terms of how they would implement the recommendations, I will bring that back. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, a first supplementary? 14:50 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Has the government costed what is required to provide oversight and monitoring of the implementation of the Bringing them home recommendations? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Certainly there has been assessment of resourcing for this role that will be provided. The government will, of course, make sure that those resources are available for the commissioner to do their work and adequately resource them to do their work. That goes without saying. In terms of the broader recommendations in Bringing them home—I'm not trying to shift responsibility here—there is work that is done across states and territories. Senator GALLAGHER ING They do have responsibility for the child protection systems. The Commonwealth doesn't run those. But we want to work with them. We want to ensure that the commissioner's role is effective and that they are able to focus on the issues that First Nations people have raised— The PRESIDENT 112096 Please resume your seat, Minister Gallagher. A point of order, Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 The question was whether the government has costed what is required to provide oversight. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister has been relevant to your question. I'm not sure if she has anything more to add in the six seconds remaining, but I will invite her. Senator GALLAGHER ING We have assessed the costing for the commissioner. I said I would come back with further information, if I had it, about the resourcing for oversight of recommendations. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, a second supplementary? 14:52 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Which targets of Closing the Gap does the government seek to most urgently progress through this new commissioner role? 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We know that First Nations children are almost 11 times more likely to come into contact with child protection systems and that the proportion of First Nations children in out-of-home care is 43 per cent. This commissioner will have the ability to make decisions themselves, so we need to get the commissioner in place. The Minister for Indigenous Australians will work with that commissioner to ensure the scope of their responsibilities and to make sure that we are consulting with relevant stakeholders about it. This national commissioner has been called for. We are putting it in place. We want it to work. This is a whole-of-country issue that involves governments at every level. We remain committed to reducing the number of children in out-of-home care and supporting First Nations families, particularly those that have contact with the child protection system. The PRESIDENT 112096 Your time has finished. The clock has wound down. Taxation 58 14:53 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Since Labor was elected to government, we have seen significant steps forward in government policies that support economic prosperity for women. This comes after a decade of inaction and disregard for Australian women by the former coalition government. Labor's tax cut plan that passed the parliament last night will mean millions of Australian women will get a bigger tax cut than they would have seen under the former Morrison government's plan. Can the minister outline the policies that the Albanese Labor government has delivered that will benefit women across this country? 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for the excellent question focusing on women. I'm surprised I don't get any questions about women from those opposite. I don't think I've had any, which is unsurprising. The tax plan that passed this parliament unanimously in the Senate last night will mean that every woman paying tax in Australia will get a tax cut. That's different from the previous plan, where a number of women taxpayers would have missed out. Ninety per cent of those women taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $707—that's additional. This is for around 5.8 million women. When we look at those areas where we have lots of women working in industries—in child care, in disability, in aged care—more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers in those industries will receive a bigger tax cut compared to the former government's plan. We know that women work hard across our economy. We want to ensure that they keep more of what they earn and that they're able to meet those daily challenges and cost-of-living pressures they face. Our government has made no secret, since we came into government, of being focused on the needs of women. We want to drive economic equality and gender equality across the economy, which is good for the economy as a whole, and we are seeing improving results. The gender pay gap is at a record low—Senator Canavan should enjoy that statistic. ABS data last week showed full-time wages dropped to 12 per cent. We don't see that as useless data, I have to say. We do think that flexibility in the workplace is actually a good thing. We don't think you have to be a full-time worker in order to have a high-paying job. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, your first supplementary. 14:56 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you for that answer. That was very informative. It's great to see such progress! In contrast to Labor's commitments, we often see our opponents make comments that remind the Australian community that they are not committed to providing women's economic security. As you have referenced, Minister, yesterday we saw clear data about the current gender pay gap. Can the minister explain how the government's suite of policies— Opposition senators: Time! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Senator GROGAN 296331 for Australian women will help to relieve cost-of-living pressures and boost their economic prosperity? Opposition senators: Time! The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Grogan Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm waiting for order, particularly on my left but also on my right, Senator Ciccone. Minister Gallagher. 14:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It is interesting to see what wakes the opposition up every now and again, what really gets them going. It's always the big issues, isn't it? Thank you, Senator Grogan. I got the vibe; I understand what it is. Opposition senators interjecting— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The question was around the suite of policies— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan, I had just called order. It was not okay for you to then start shouting out again. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The question was about the government's suite of policies for Australian women and how they help assist and relieve cost-of-living pressures and boost economic prosperity. We have made this a key priority of our government. We do believe the data that was released yesterday on the gender pay gap is useful data, unlike Senator Canavan who thought it was the most useless set of data— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. I will come to you, Senator Canavan, in just a moment. I want order in the chamber before I do that. Senator Canavan 245212 Point of order— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, I haven't called you. I indicated I would come to you. I'm waiting for silence in the chamber. Senator Canavan. Senator Canavan 245212 Point of order on relevance. Senator Watt 245759 Back in the 1950s! The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Senator Canavan. Senator Watt, I had just restored order. It is not appropriate to then immediately call out again. Senator Canavan is on his feet and I want to give him the opportunity to make his point of order. Senator Canavan 245212 Given there wasn't a question, it's a bit hard to know how this answer is actually relevant. How can an answer be relevant if no question was actually asked? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, that is not a point of order but given— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! On a number of occasions in this place when senators haven't got to the end of their questions the minister has still been given the opportunity to answer it. Thank you, Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING Before I come to the last part of that, I did hear the question being asked; it was because those opposite were drowning it out that they didn't hear it, but there was a question asked. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I have lost all my time now. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a second supplementary question? 15:00 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Minister, you have said many times that what's good for women's economic security is good for the broader economy. How will the investment this government has made in Australian women and Labor tax cuts plan help to strengthen the Australian economy and help women to meet the continuing cost-of-living pressures that they are facing at this time? 15:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This government does believe that driving gender equality is good for the economy. We are focused on that. You'll see that in the decisions we took on tax and you'll also see that, by the changes we made to the tax system, that we believe the Treasury advice, which says it will boost 630 thousand additional hours per week worked by women because they will be keeping more of what they earn. We do believe information being provided about what's happening in businesses is good. We reject Senator Canavan's claim that this data is useless. I think Senator Hughes called it 'identity politics' and Senator Hume said it was 'flawed', but otherwise the information apparently is okay. This is data that has been collected for 10 years. It's important data about driving change in workplaces to make sure that women get a fair crack at opportunity in this country. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 60 15:01 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Gallagher. Labor's family car tax could increase the cost of SUVs and utes by up to $25,000, including $11,000 on the RAV4 and nearly $20,000 on a Ford Ranger, according to modelling by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries. Your government claims that its car tax is modelled on the United States', but the US corporate average fuel efficiency standard is based on actual fuel efficiency—gallons per mile—not a carbon tax and trading scheme like Labor has proposed. Why is the government claiming it has a fuel efficiency standard when it is really just another form of carbon tax introduced in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis which will hurt the voters of Dunkley and everyday Australians. 15:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As I said yesterday, the National Party smell a scare campaign and they can't wait to get on top of it. They race towards it: 'Here we go, here's something where we can drive a bit of fear and disunity and create myths across the community.' They love it. They love nothing more, especially if it's linked to climate change in some way. That really gets them out of bed in the morning, doesn't it? 'How can we take Australia back to when we were in government?', back to when there was no change, back to when there were 22 energy policies and you didn't land one of them when ministers lost their jobs if they even look sideways at doing anything supportive on climate. As we know, this has meant we are years behind on the energy transition—years behind trying to seize the jobs and the growth that will come from the renewable energy transition. On the new vehicle efficiency standard, the government is consulting on a model. That's what we're doing. We are getting feedback on that. There are options in the consultation document. The minister is talking directly with industry manufacturers and with the Australian CEO's, and we thank them for their engagement. That process will continue until 4 March, as I understand it, and then the government will consider those consultations. But 85 per cent of the global car market is covered by fuel efficiency standards. We know that Josh Frydenberg said, 'We've always been committed to getting fuel efficiency standards in place,' and we saw what happened to him. We also know the member for Bradfield was all for them for a period—probably before being told that he wouldn't have a future— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, first supplementary? 15:04 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Minister, if the Albanese Labor government is so certain that your car tax will not lead to higher car prices and drive up the cost of living for Australians, why is the government preventing the Senate from seeing the government's calculations and hiding behind a public interest immunity claim? Why won't you honour the Prime Minister's promise of greater transparency and release the modelling? 15:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There is no evidence to suggest that the new vehicle efficiency standard will increase vehicle prices. In jurisdictions that have had that standard in place for some time, sometimes for up to 50 years—and I know the National Party like to go back in time, but it's like they want to go back beyond 50 years—real-world evidence has not shown an increase in price for consumers. What we are trying to do here is make sure that we have more fuel-efficient vehicles—tick!—make sure there's choice for consumers— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING and make sure the costs of operating a car are lowered. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. I'm going to wait for silence, Senator Canavan, and then I'll come to you. Senator Canavan. Senator Canavan 245212 Thank you, Madam President. A point of order on relevance: this question was specifically about releasing the modelling, which is subject to an order for the production of documents from this chamber. I'd just ask that the minister be brought to the question about why they're refusing and ignoring that order for the production of documents. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Canavan. Your question also went to driving up costs. That was the opening statement to your question. I believe the minister is being relevant and I will continue to listen. Senator GALLAGHER ING We have released an impact statement, 80 pages, which I'm sure you've pored over. I would go back to what Mr Fletcher said: 'There wasn't a material change in price and we don't expect that there would be a material change in price here.' I would remind those opposite that when they were in government—before you nobbled it, probably at a National Party meeting—they proposed much tighter targets for 2025 than under our proposal. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, second supplementary? 15:07 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Minister, this morning you were asked on ABC radio whether you accepted that people are concerned about Labor's new family car tax and that it's a live issue in the electorate that people are concerned that their car prices will increase. You said, 'I accept that.' Why is the government so determined to introduce a family car tax on SUVs, four-wheel drives and utes that is so extreme that most hybrid cars will also be subject to Labor's family car tax and it will drive up the cost of living for all Australians? 15:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I wasn't asked that question—it has a Canavan flourish to it—but, Senator Canavan, you are raising a concern. You are raising a concern, so my answer to that was correct: I accept that there are people, including all of the National Party, I presume, who have concerns about this. But then I went on to say that this is about driving choice, getting more fuel efficiency. Involve yourself in the consultation program. You can't just go around killing every proposal because you think it might be positive for the climate, which is the approach that you have taken. This is a sensible reform. We are consulting on it. Those consultations will close on the fourth. We know that Mr Fletcher, Senator Sharma and Mr Frydenberg all supported this, with tighter targets than the ones that are being proposed in the consultation document. We look forward to that being completed. I ask that all further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS 62 STATEMENTS Personal Explanation 62 15:08 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I seek leave to make a personal explanation under standing order 190. Leave granted. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I draw the Senate's attention to the deliberate use of derogatory words designed to damage me personally and professionally. Comments by Senator Thorpe referring to me as 'native police' carry negative historic stereotypes to increase hatred towards me and, by extension, my family. As a Yanyuwa Garrwa woman I'm very proud of my uncle, one of the longest serving police liaison officers and police trackers in the Northern Territory, and I'm proud of his daughter, who has followed in his footsteps. My family welcomed Senator Thorpe to Yanyuwa country and embraced her. I find her communication and dialogue in this Senate towards me and my families reprehensible. I view Senator Thorpe's use of the term 'native police' as lateral violence. It makes me feel culturally unsafe in the Senate and with Senator Thorpe. I ask all senators to be respectful in debate. We each come with our lived experiences. There is no place for harmful language against one another. Hate is not the example I want to give to my fellow Australians. No matter how much I may disagree with your views, I respect your right to have them. I want to uphold a better standard for myself and my families, and it's what I expect and believe the Australian people want of us. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 62 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers To Questions 62 15:11 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to all coalition questions without notice asked today. I'm going to talk about Senator Henderson's questions about the fact that the focus groups are homing in on what a debacle the Prime Minister has created in this country with the cost of living. We have got a rental crisis going on in this country where we have thousands of Australians homeless. We have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Australians homeless and millions struggling to make ends meet. That has been the result of the Labor party's reckless immigration policy, where they ramped immigration up to over 500,000 people. For what reason? I don't know. The only reason I can figure is that it was a sop to the universities, because half of these immigrants are going to university. I think they really need to explain—and today would be a good day to start—why they suddenly decided there was a need to increase immigration to such a high rate. I have heard one reason given that they had to catch up after COVID. I don't know why that's a reason, because throughout COVID the building industry was shut down. So it's not like the infrastructure was still being built. It's not like essential services were still being built. As a matter of fact, we had a lot of people working in essential services who were unable to work. After the economic catastrophe of COVID, why would you suddenly decide to bring in so many people? Was it Treasury? Was it Treasury's big population agenda that they've been running for years to keep the GDP, the gross domestic product, looking good while ignoring the per capita domestic product? I don't know. These are the questions that the Labor party need to answer. I've got to be honest with you, I think the Australian people are sick and tired of the lack of transparency coming from those on the other side. The Labor Party, those on the other side, are not interested in serving the people. They are only interested in controlling the people. A lot of people say, 'Look out for the New World Order.' I say, 'No, we're living in the New World Order.' The New World Order is democracy and people power. That's what a liberal democracy is. It's grassroots movement and the people telling the government what to do. The forefathers of our great friends, the American patriots, brought that on in the American War of Independence, where they overthrew the hereditary rights of the aristocrats. As we stand here in this chamber today, we need to reflect on that. We represent the people. We're here to serve the people, not bring in hundreds of thousands of people and put our people—our Australians—out on the street. We are not here to put our Australians on the brink of bankruptcy because of reckless immigration that drove the interests rates up, which has sent mortgages and rents through the roof. And what do we get? If they're not wasting time on the Voice and identity politics and trying to divide Australia between black and white, we then get this new ridiculous law where they want to impose emissions standards on cars. That is going to add thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars to the cost for our hardworking tradies—the very people who build houses. I know we're not allowed to impute motive in this chamber, so I won't, but it doesn't take a lot to join the dots—high immigration. Pull out the builders. Destroy the building industry. Let's put all the people out on the streets. If I didn't know any better, I would think that these people want to destroy the Australian economy, and by 'these people' I mean the Australian Labor Party. So I say to the Australian Labor Party: you need to be more transparent, and you need to get your loyalties straight. They are to the Australian people. And you need to release that modelling. The idea that somehow you've got a public interest immunity claim, that somehow this isn't in the interest of the public and that you don't have to release this modelling, is absurd. It is absurd, and only a Labor Party not interested in serving the Australian people would actually propose to keep this a secret. Shame on you. 15:17 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I find myself somewhat bemused by the quality of the questions that were brought into the Senate today. I note that this morning the first meeting that I had was with representatives of Taiwan, talking about real challenges in our region that have a massive impact on our nation and our economy. We got no questions about that. We got no questions on this, the week that is the beginning of the third year of the war in Ukraine. We got no questions on anything of substance like that. We certainly didn't get anything on Israel and Palestine. If it's not going to be of an international frame, you'd think that they could at least maybe mount something of profound national interest. I note that the Minister for Finance, who's the acting leader here in the Senate here this week, doing a great job, my colleague Senator Gallagher, did indicate in her response to one of the questions that in fact there were some figures out about inflation today. I reckon that matters to the Australian people. We might have got some questions about that. We might have got some questions about taxation, after the big whingefest that's gone on for weeks and months from the Liberal and National parties about taxation and their disgust at the fact that 13.6 million people in Australia are going to get a bigger tax cut. We could have got questions on that, but, no, we didn't. But I am going to attempt to respond with integrity to what was a ridiculous question but did focus on an important issue, and that is what's happening in the seat of Dunkley. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge that in this place we are still grieving the loss of a beautiful woman, a fine Australian by the name of Peta Murphy, who was the member for Dunkley. Like so many Australians, particularly Australian women, sadly she had an encounter with breast cancer. She had successful treatment, and then it became metastatic. In the course of the time that she was a member, she was fighting that the whole time. She didn't take her eye off that community and what it needed in terms of advocacy, though, and she engaged with the candidate who is now running in her place by the name of Jodie Belyea. As a Frankston mum with a mortgage, we know that she actually understands the cost-of-living pressures. I am sure she would never have thought that the questions we got here in the Senate today deal with anything that is real for the people of Dunkley. Jodie is fighting for the people of Dunkley to make sure they get more of what the Albanese government can give them, which is relief, a real response, not hand-wringing nonsense—'yes, we see you are having a bit of a bad time but we can't possibly help'. We can see Australians are having some really serious challenges and because, responsibly, we agreed to a package of tax cuts and gave our word that we would honour the tax cuts that were already in the budget, the Labor government decided that the suffering of 13.6 million hard-working Australians should not go ignored, that it deserved a response. This is the government that has Jodie standing for us in the seat of Dunkley, the government focused on the real things that impact people's lives, not the nonsense that we have seen from the opposition today, and that is why we were making sure last night, when we put the legislation through here, that Australians will be able to earn more and keep more of what they earn. The reality is for the people in Dunkley to remember when they are casting their vote on Saturday that the cost-of-living tax cuts that passed the Senate are going to mean that more than 70,000 taxpayers in that seat of Dunkley are going to get a tax cut. A retail worker who, hopefully, has joined the great union with which I am associated, the SDA, earning $73,000 a year, is going to get a tax cut of $1,504. The people in Dunkley need a government that is focused on their real needs. They also need an opposition that is going to come in here and do a fair day's work and ask decent questions that have material impact to the people of Australia, instead of the games that we have seen played in the Senate today. There is a big win for the people of Dunkley on Saturday when they support Labor's candidate, Jodie Belyea. 15:22 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Well, clearly a teacher joining the SDU must just be shoring up numbers for pre-selection. Senator O'Neill 140651 SDA! Senator HUGHES 273828 SDA, my apologies. Everything ends with a union, so SDA. But anyway, I don't want to talk about that today because— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator O'Neill, on a point of order? Senator O'Neill 140651 I am a member of the National Tertiary Education Union. I am associated with the SDA. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It's not a debate. Thank you, Senator O'Neill, for correcting the record. Senator O'Neill 140651 Well, she should tell the truth. The DEPUTY 10000 Senator Hughes, you have missed the call. Senator Hughes, I'm going to the government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I mean, I withdrew the call because the member was not obeying my reasonable request to bring her to order and was then shouting directly at the Labor member, which was disrespectful to me. Senator Birmingham H6X Deputy President, I encourage you to re-consider that decision. I acknowledge that there have been a couple of examples in extremis recently that has seen the call withdrawn in the chamber. Those examples have only operated in extremis. In 17 years here, I have seen plenty of backwards and forwards across the chamber. I recognise the importance of the chair having the authority to be able to control the chamber; however, in the circumstances there, I believe that a withdrawal of the call was an excessive use of that power relative to where we have seen it used to date, and it is a matter currently before the procedure committee in any event. But I would on this occasion ask you to reconsider whether this was proportionate to the circumstances that you faced. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I wouldn't say it was a complete withdrawal of the call but if the member apologises to me, I will return the call to her. Senator HUGHES 273828 Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I apologise to you and I will start by saying that I did not tell a mistruth. I misspoke one letter. For that to be classified as a mistruth is an imputation, and the senator opposite may like to reflect on imputations. What I want to talk about today is the fact that one of the jobs of the federal government is to keep Australians safe, and we know those opposite have absolutely no capacity to do that. That is becoming more and more obvious every single day. There has been zero leadership from this government when it comes to antisemitism. We know the rise of antisemitism that is occurring in this country is being absolutely fuelled by the lack of leadership that we see from those opposite in this incredibly important matter. It is absolutely appalling the way they conduct themselves when it comes to matters of immigration, when it comes to national security, when it comes to border security, when it comes to standing with our democratic partner in Israel, while they pander to seats in south-west Sydney. They are continually letting the Jewish Australian community down, which is actually just a part of the Australian community. They are not a separate group. They do not ghettoise themselves. They do not celebrate the deaths of other peoples like we have seen happen in Palestine and by those in Australia who align themselves with that cause. If we want to talk about safety in this place, I find it incredibly distressing every time I walk to my office, where I see a cry for genocide conducted in a fellow senator's office as she posts in her window the cry 'From the river to the sea.' Yet, from their activity, we know that those opposite stand by that sentiment, and we know, as we saw yesterday— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM Senator Hughes is impugning the motives of other senators in the most disgraceful way by suggesting that other senators have a pride in genocide. That is blatantly untrue, and impugning the motives of other senators in that way is highly disorderly. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I didn't quite read it like that, Senator McKim, but I ask the honourable senator to be very careful with her language on a delicate issue. Senator HUGHES 273828 From speaking to Australians of the Jewish faith, I can tell you that they see that cry as very much a call for genocide, because the removal of the right of Israel to exist is exactly that: a call for genocide. We saw yesterday in the media— Senator HUGHES 273828 Sorry, I can't hear myself think over Senator McKim's interjections. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKim, please exercise restraint. Senator HUGHES 273828 Yesterday we saw reported in the paper that a convicted terrorist, someone who hijacked two planes and who is fundamentally an active member of a terrorist organisation, is planning to come to Australia to speak at a socialist conference. What a disgrace! The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—how dare they include Leila Khaled, who has terrorised and hijacked two planes. Yet this government is still sitting on its hands when they have been called on to not provide a visa. We know this minister for immigration won't be able to help himself, because not only are they pandering to south-west Sydney, pandering to their own far-left pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel elements within the Labor Party—they've got to keep the unicorn farmers up the end happy. But we absolutely have a problem with antisemitism in this country. It is getting worse and is absolutely disgraceful. We know those opposite won't do it. They'll come here in their keffiyehs and they'll stand for solidarity, completely ignoring that there was a ceasefire on 6 October. They endorse the views of people who somehow think of 7 October as a pogrom—the worst deaths of Jewish people and Israelis since the Holocaust. Yet we have a senator in this place now smiling at the pogrom, smiling at what happened to people in Israel on 7 October. What a disgrace! Yet Home Affairs are going to sit on their hands and allow this absolutely disgraceful terrorist into this country. I'm sure we'll see the Greens and those of the pro-Palestinian left in the Labor Party there cheering her on. But don't worry, Australians: not only are we getting a terrorist in the country; if anyone who comes here wants to spike the drink of a woman and conduct indecent acts, then, as long as he's a signed-up member and mate of the Labor Party, Andrew Giles will let him out. The minister will say: 'Off you go! No ankle bracelet for you—no conditions for you—because you're a Labor mate.' We're just interested to know: Is he enrolled to vote in Dunkley? Are you that worried about Saturday? 15:30 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Having had to endure the sheer falsehoods in those statements and the accusations as to our government—which has been responsible, from day one, in dealing with the issue in the Middle East and in dealing with every single issue that has arisen—and then having been faced with accusations, one after another, I will just set some records straight and put the facts into the Hansard. There has been no visa application from Leila Khaled. So, to Australians out there listening to this: do not listen to those opposite. They love fearmongering. They thrive on it. When they smell it from a mile away, they will latch onto it. It is not correct. There is no place for terrorism in this country. We, as the Australian government, will never—I say 'never'—advocate for it or allow anyone to advocate for it. We would not allow anyone like that to come to our country and incite hatred and division and that sort of propaganda. It is unacceptable. I think those opposite are actually very confused about what they stand for. They have no idea what they stand for. They think they're representing the people of Australia, but they're wrong. They find themselves chasing their own tails, going around in circles, and I feel they get a great sense of relief by running to Sky News and using it as a go-to channel to vent and whinge about issues that they couldn't solve in the last decade. Instead of offering solutions to the rising cost-of-living pressures, they are committing to undoing the good work that our government is doing. We've heard—I asked the question in question time—that Senator Hume has promised that, if the Liberals and Nations are re-elected, they will go back to the drawing board on tax cuts. They absolutely refuse to believe that the Labor government can be such good economic managers that they are able to provide relief to the 13.6 million Australians who will be receiving a tax cut from 1 July this year. They don't realise that 70,000 taxpayers in Dunkley, who are facing a by-election on Saturday, will be receiving a tax cut. What do Mr Dutton and those opposite want? They want you to work more for less. They don't want you to keep more of what you earn. They have no plan. They literally have no plan, and all they're good at is fearmongering and creating division amongst us. From the Voice referendum and the questions asked at question time, to the High Court's decision on the NZYQ case and the housing Help to Buy scheme, I don't understand why those opposite can't face the facts and respect them as they are. They just have to conflate issues, and it's absolutely unreal. Perhaps it would be important and useful for those opposite to spend less time on the media and more time on the ground to hear from real Australians about real issues that are impacting their lives. I want to use my last minute or so to take the opportunity to talk to the people of Dunkley. You have experienced the great loss of the amazing member that you had, Peta Murphy. She was an incredible friend and a great support for me as a first-term senator. She'd met Jodie Belyea through the Women's Spirit Project, a not-for-profit organisation that Jodie had founded. Knowing that Peta handpicked Jodie, I have great confidence in Jodie standing for the people of Dunkley and being a strong advocate and voice here in Canberra for you. We know that it's going to be close. By-elections are always tough; let's face it. But what we do know is that Jodie, as part of the Albanese Labor government, is going to do what's best for you and put your interests first. A mere example of the tax cuts that we passed last night: a retail worker in Dunkley earning $73,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,504. That's $804 more than under the Liberals. 15:35 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to take note of answers provided in question time today by the government. I was somewhat incredulous, and then I wasn't, when I heard a senator opposite say they couldn't understand why we were asking questions about cost-of-living pressures on Australian families. I thought that really said everything about how out of touch this government really is. I can assure them that everybody on this side of the Senate chamber knows and understands, because we are out there talking to Australian families and Australian workers every day. There is not a day, not a visit, that goes by in my home state of Western Australia where Western Australians are not saying how much they have been impacted by the cost-of-living rises that have occurred in less than two years under this government. And it's not just one or two areas where they're coming under cost pressures; it is in everything that they buy and spend money on. Food is up nine per cent. Petrol is up 27 per cent. There have been 12 interest rate hikes in just over 12 months under those opposite, and, on average, Australians and Western Australians are now paying at least $24,000 extra per year in their mortgage payments. In Western Australia, in particular, housing is so expensive. It's not just the extra $24,000 a year on average in mortgages; those Western Australians who rent know just how expensive it now is. Rents have increased by over 26 per cent, and first home buyers and new approvals remain at their lowest levels in more than a decade. In WA the median house price has risen over 21 per cent, and rents in Western Australia have risen by nearly 50 per cent under those opposite. That is a complete disgrace. Just to afford the average mortgage in Perth, families will need to earn over $115,000 a year, all at a time when real wages have decreased under those opposite. To make it even worse, in Perth we have the lowest rental vacancy rates in Australia, at less than 0.4 per cent. Not only have those opposite federally made it incredibly difficult for Western Australians to afford to eat and buy the necessities, but now, with their proposed taxes for cars, people will be paying $25,000 more for a Toyota LandCruiser, $17,000 more for a Ford Ranger and nearly $15,000 more for a Toyota HiLux. These are the tools of trade of families and workers in Western Australia. Question agreed to. Covid-19: Vaccination 66 15:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to COVID-19 vaccinations. I take note of Senator Gallagher's answer to my question on the Queensland Supreme Court's decision. The court found measures relating to COVID were mandated on a number of Queensland workers without adequate consideration of their human rights as required under the Queensland Human Rights Act. Identical human rights provisions apply in Victoria and the ACT. So certainly there is the probability of the same or similar decisions being made in other jurisdictions. I'd hoped the government would be fully aware of the implications of this decision. I was disappointed. The minister deflected and failed to address the substance of the question, so here are some more reasons the minister should get clarity on this issue. An employee who is fired as the outcome from a vaccine mandate can sue the employer, which may be the government, for wrongful dismissal. An employee who took a vaccine to keep their job as a result of a vaccine mandate, who is now vaccine injured, can sue for damages. Class-action lawsuits will result from this decision. The Commonwealth will be as much in the firing line as Victoria and Queensland. It's not just mandates. Evidence has been presented over the last few months that closing schools and denying children education has caused a permanent drop in children's educational potential and medical health—permanent harm. Last week, a landmark study of 99 million people including Australians found the injections caused an increase in blood clots, brain injuries and heart disease of up to 600 per cent. These injuries are legally actionable. Whether it's over mandates, vaccine injuries, education or business closures, victims will be joining class-action lawsuits sooner rather than later. All levels of government in Australia made terrible mistakes during COVID. Only a royal commission has the powers and the resources to decide what mistakes were made and how the victims of those mistakes can be fairly compensated. This will be expensive, yet failure to act through a royal commission will create a running sore on public administration for a generation. Only an objective royal commission will restore trust in governments and in the healthcare sector. Question agreed to. Economy 66 15:40 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the economy. Nowhere is the consolidation of market power in Australia more evident than in the banking sector and in our supermarket aisles. The big four banks are on a shopping spree. They've gobbled up St George, Bankwest and the Bank of Melbourne, and they're not stopping there; they have Suncorp in their sights. In our supermarket sector, Coles and Woolworths have turned it into a duopoly, pushing out or swallowing up most of the competition. This consolidation is not just about market share; it's about ruthlessly using market dominance to inflate margins well beyond what we see in similar but more competitive markets overseas. Take a hard look at earnings and recent prices and margins revealed in the supermarket sector. Coles clocked in an operating profit of $1.7 billion on sales of $19.7 billion in just six months. That is a margin of 8.7 per cent. Woolworths had an even higher margin, of 9.6 per cent, with an operating profit of $2.5 billion from $25.6 billion in sales. To put these figures, particularly the margins, in perspective, Sainsbury's in the UK runs at a margin of just over six per cent. Remember: for Coles it's 8.7 per cent and for Woolworths it's 9.6 per cent. What does that tell us? It tells us that the two supermarket giants in Australia are utilising their outsized market power to price-gouge, and Australians are paying the price. Would the minister accept the proposition today that corporations are price gouging in Australia? No, she wouldn't. And yet, in failing to do that, she is ignoring the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, who has acknowledged that corporations in areas of low competition are in fact using the cover of inflation and low competition as an excuse to increase prices more than they need to. But it's not just the Governor of the RBA who agrees that corporations are profiteering. We have the OECD, we have the IMF, we have the European Central Bank, we have the Bank of England, we have the Federal Reserve in the United States, we've got the former chair of the ACCC Mr Fels and we have the Australia Institute economists all telling us that corporations are engaged in price gouging. Yet, somehow, a government living in fantasy land is refusing to accept that proposition. The Labor and Liberal parties are making all the right noises about the supermarket duopoly being out of control. They pull all the right faces when they're talking about it. But here is the problem, folks: both of the major parties, the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics, pocket political donations from Coles and Woolworths—the very supermarkets that are engaged in price gouging to the extent that Australians are skipping meals to be able to afford food. If Labor and the coalition are genuinely keen on taking on Coles and Woolworths, and joining the Greens to take on the giant supermarket corporations, then here's a thought: you can start by giving back those political donations. Show the Australian people where your loyalties lie. Are you with them, the Australians who are skipping meals to be able to afford to put food on the table for the rest of the week? Or are you in bed with the supermarket corporations at the top end of town, turning a blind eye while they squeeze every last cent they can out of their shoppers? The Greens are calling on Labor and the Liberals to put their money where their mouths are and return the political donations they get from Coles and Woolworths and, in doing so, take a stand against corporate greed, take a stand against profiteering and take a stand against price gouging. Show the Australian people you're serious about standing up and tackling the duopoly, who ruthlessly use their market dominance to do over farmers, their workers and their shoppers, instead of acting as their parliamentary lickspittles, which is what you've been doing up until now. We need more than lip service from the Labor and Liberal parties; we need accountability and we need people in this place who are willing to stand up to the corporate giants. In the Australian Greens, you've found just such people. Question agreed to. NOTICES 67 NOTICES Presentation 67 15:46 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia ( On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next sitting day to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 for seven sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio Measures No. 1) Regulations 2023. Presentation 67 Postponement 69 15:47 The PRESIDENT 112096 ( I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 70 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 70 15:47 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania ( by leave—At the request of Senator Van, I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Van for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Education and Employment References Committee 70 Reference 70 15:48 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania ( At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Cadell, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 November 2024: The effectiveness of the Albanese Labor Government's waste reduction and recycling policies in delivering a circular economy, with reference to: (a) recycling export regulations imposed through the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, noting the: (i) ramifications for Australia's international and domestic commitments and obligations under the Act, (ii) benefits and consequences of imposing the requirements on the Australian industry, and (iii) interaction and efficacy of the community and economic benefits of the legislation; (b) the efficacy and progress on circular economy deliverables; (c) the progress on the implementation of mandated product stewardship schemes; and (d) any other related matters. Question agreed to. BILLS 70 BILLS Legislate the Date to End Live Sheep Export Bill 2024 70

Legislate the Date to End Live Sheep Export Bill 2024

First Reading 70 15:49 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales ( I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the export control law in relation to the export of live sheep, and for related purposes—Legislate the Date to End Live Sheep Export Bill 2024. Question agreed to. Senator FARUQI 250362 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 70 15:49 Senator 250362 New South Wales FARUQI () (): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator FARUQI 250362 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I am proud to introduce this bill to amend the Export Control Act 2020 to prohibit livestock sheep export by sea from Australian territory on and after 1 May 2026. I am introducing this bill because the Australian people have well and truly had enough of the cruelty of live sheep export. Now more than ever they want this trade in misery to end. Animals are not mere cargo. They are living, breathing, sentient beings. They deserve a dignified life, free from suffering, just as much as we do. And the reality is that live export is totally incompatible with animal welfare. Governments have facilitated this trade for decades, condemning thousands upon thousands of animals to horrific deaths and unimaginable suffering. In 1966, 67,000 sheep died aboard the Unceb. In 1980, 40,000 sheep were dead on the Farid Fares. In 2003, 5,500 sheep perished on the MV Cormo Express. In 2014, 4,000 sheep, dead on the Bader III. In 2017, 3,000 dead aboard the Al Messlah. In 2017, 2,400 sheep died on the Awassi Express These are just some of the horrors of this barbaric trade that we know about. There are many thousands more animals that suffer in extreme heat, in crammed and overcrowded filthy containers and go hungry and thirsty. The industry has long tried to hide and downplay the true extent of suffering involved in live export, and the government has aided and abetted the industry. To this day, there is little transparency about the suffering onboard these ships of misery. It is only thanks to tireless and courageous efforts of animal welfare advocates, whistleblowers and activists who, time after time, have exposed the cruelty of the industry and the failures of the government, that we know the extent of suffering live exports causes animals. These exposes have brought the need for urgent reform to the fore. In August 2017, Faisal Ullah, a 25-year-old young Pakistani trainee navigation officer bravely exposed the calamity that occurred on the Awassi Express. By April of 2018, Animals Australia and 60 minutes helped reveal the sickening images of thousands of live sheep and lambs being cooked alive from heat stress, crushed to death from overcrowding, or having their throats slit by crew members and thrown overboard. Shortly after, in 2018, my Greens-led bilI to end the long haul export of live sheep and lambs during the northern hemisphere summer passed the Senate, but the then Coalition government gagged debate in the House of Representatives. Over 70% of voyages since 2018 have reported heat stress in sheep while in the equatorial, Persian Gulf and Red Sea regions. Yet it took another 4 years until the government imposed a ban of sheep exports through the Middle East during the northern hemisphere, only to then weaken this ban. Even small improvements to the live export trade have taken far too long, and sheep continue to suffer. There have been dozens of reforms, reviews and inquiries since the industry started, but the cruelty continues. It's crystal clear that we cannot stop animal cruelty in live export by getting rid of a few bad apples, or tinkering around the edges—animal torture is absolutely baked into the industry's business model. Time and time again, we have seen that nothing can be done to make live export ships safe for animals. This cruel trade is irredeemable and the only option is to shut it down. Again, in 2019, I stood in this place and introduced a bill to end the export of live animals for slaughter. I held up a truly gruesome photo of the suffering of sheep on the Awassi Express, telling the government that the system is broken and this cruel trade must end. And late last year we were reminded just how broken the system is, when the WA government inexplicably dropped its charges of animal cruelty against the Awassi Express operator Emanuel Exports, a decision that absolutely stinks of political interference and leaves no one held accountable for the horrific deaths of 2,400 sheep. The disasters have continued this year. After more than 9,200 sheep and 3,700 cattle were subjected to torturous heat on the MV Bahijah for eight straight days back in 2018, in January this year a further 16,500 sheep were left sweltering through a heat wave off the Western Australian coast on the very same ship. This is after they had already been on this ship for weeks because of the terrible decision to send the ship through a conflict zone. The government should never have approved the Bahijah to leave the shore of WA to head through a conflict zone in the Red Sea, exposing sheep on board to an even longer and more dangerous journey. It's clear the government is completely held to ransom by exporters which will pursue profit above all else, and neither give a damn about animal welfare. If it was high time to end live export back in 2018 when my bill passed the Senate, it's beyond time to shut the industry down right now. This cruel trade has completely lost its social licence if it ever had one. Independent polling commissioned by my office from June 2023 showed 85% of Australians support a phase-out of live sheep export. And in Western Australia, where the majority of the live export industry operates, 71% of people support the phase-out according to independent polling commissioned by RSPCA Australia from May 2023. This is on top of the petition to end live export I tabled in the Senate back in 2018 signed by almost 238,000 people. The Greens and I have worked alongside animal welfare advocates, activists and the community on this issue for years. Thank you to them, and thank you to the tireless work and support of Australian Alliance for Animals, RSPCA Australia, Stop Live Exports, Animals Australia, and Vets Against Live Export, among many others. The pressure of the community has pushed Labor to promise to ban live sheep export at the last two elections, and finally look at doing something to improve animal welfare in this country. But people are losing faith bit by bit. Labor says they are committed to ending live sheep export, but then first announced that they won't actually be phasing out this cruel trade in their first term, and now they're telling people they don't know when they will bring in legislation to phase it out. This is not good enough. Delay after delay, excuse after excuse, while animals continue to suffer and die. It's now almost a year since the government first sought advice from a panel on phasing out live sheep export, and a whole 4 months since the phase-out panel provided its advice—yet we have seen no action. Across the country, people are demanding a fast phase-out. An overwhelming 80% of submissions to the panel support the phase-out, and independent polling commissioned by my office shows 59% of Australians want the phase-out to occur within 2 years. Over 43,000 Australians signed a petition calling on the government to legislate an end date for live sheep export in this term, and for a phase-out within the shortest possible timeframe. Just last week, I was proud to join activists in Perth as the Prime Minister and his cabinet met, calling on Labor to urgently legislate the date to end live sheep exports. This bill prohibits live sheep export from Australia from 1 May 2026 because this date is the start of the northern hemisphere summer period during which live exports by sea are especially harmful for sheep due to heat stress. It reflects the urgency with which the phase-out should occur and also provides sufficient time for market adaptation and a reasonable phase-out. A longer phase-out period creates uncertainty and places animal welfare at increased risks, as standards slip due to declining industry investment over the phase-out period. The live sheep export trade has already declined by over 70% since 2018, accelerating a longer term decline that has been happening over 2 decades. Australia's domestic meat export trade is worth many times more than that of the live export trade, and is only projected to grow further in the short to medium term. Transitioning the remaining portion of exported sheep to on-shore processing will provide a net increase in jobs and provide more opportunities for local supply chains. Australia is falling behind globally on animal welfare. Increasingly, the international reputation of Australia's broader sheep and wool industries are put at risk by being associated with the live export trade. Yet like with fossil fuels, Australia seems intent on coming last place in the movement to ban live exports. New Zealand banned the export of animals for slaughter in 2008, and last year banned the export of all livestock by sea. And in the UK, a ban on the export of livestock for fattening and slaughter is on the government's legislative agenda. It's time to roll up our sleeves and get this done in Australia. The live export industry has seen the writing on the wall. And they are fighting like hell with their well funded campaigns, to push for an end date that is so far out into the future, literally hundreds of thousands of animals will continue to suffer as they have been for decades. The Labor government must stare down these last ditch attempts by a brutal industry that uses animal cruelty as fodder for profits, and commit to a phase-out within a 2-3 year period. If the government is serious about animal welfare and ending live sheep exports, it must move now to legislate an end date within this term of Parliament, providing certainty for all, and then work towards the details of a swift phase-out plan. The Parliament is sitting here waiting to pass legislation and make this a reality. The government must support this bill and put an end to the cruelty and suffering of live sheep export once and for all. Senator FARUQI 250362 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 72 DOCUMENTS Services Australia 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 15:50 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Henderson, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, by no later than 3 pm on Thursday, 29 February 2024, the latest iteration of Services Australia's Enterprise Risk Watchlist. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee 72 Reference 72 15:51 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that yesterday evening after 6.30 pm a division was called on the closure motion moved by Senator McKim relating to a proposed reference to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold that division now. For the sake of clarity, if the closure is not agreed to, the motion will be called on again for further debate at item 21 of today's Order of Business. The question is that the closure motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. 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. 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. 24 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:59 The PRESIDENT 112096 As the closure motion was agreed to, I'm now going to put Senator Antic's motion. The question is that a motion proposing a reference to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, as moved by Senator Antic, be agreed to.  

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

 26 AYES Antic, A. (Teller) Askew, W. Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. 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. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:02 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria (In division) Cry me a river. Cry me a river. Stop! Stop! Excuse me. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Thorpe 280304 Can you tell your mate? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, we're in the middle of a division. I've called order. That applies to you. DOCUMENTS 74 DOCUMENTS Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 16:04 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave of the Senate to move my motion No. 474. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 10 am on 29 February 2024, the final report of the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel. 16:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will not be supporting this motion. The Albanese government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force's Afghanistan inquiry report to the fullest extent possible. It has long been held that it is for the executive government to release independent reports at the appropriate time. The report of the independent implementation oversight panel dealt with in this motion has been handed to government and is currently under thorough consideration. These are sensitive matters that may have implications for criminal prosecutions related to war crimes, among other issues. The government will release the report and its response once that consideration is concluded. The opposition has indicated to the government that it will be supporting Senator Roberts's motion, and requested but then did not make themselves available for a briefing on the report. This is not the behaviour of a responsible party of government, and the opposition should think carefully about the road it is walking down in this action. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 474 standing in the name of Senator Roberts be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:10]
(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. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Indigenous Advisory Committee, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 75 Order for the Production of Documents 75 16:12 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 481 relating to an order for the production of documents. Leave granted. Senator THORPE 280304 I move the motion as amended: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 14 March 2024, the following: (a) all documents, advice and correspondence between the Indigenous Advisory Committee (IAC) operating under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Minister's office relating to the proposed new National Environmental Standard for First Nations engagement and participation; (b) any draft national environmental standard for First Nations Engagement and Participation whether prepared or put forward by the IAC, the department or any related entities; and (c) all meeting notes, briefing notes, emails and other written communications relating to any meetings conducted by the Department in relation to the proposed new National Environmental Standard for First Nations engagement and participation. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 75 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Dunkley By-Election 75 16:14 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Senator Hume has submitted a proposal: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The broken promise to the people of Dunkley by Prime Minister Albanese to have a plan for the cost of living, and instead deliver higher mortgage costs, higher energy bills and high prices at the checkout, all the while failing to get inflation under control. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:14 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion moved by Senator Hume. On Saturday, as we all know, there's a very important by-election taking place in Dunkley, a beautiful community in south-east Melbourne. This by-election has been brought about by tragic circumstances. The very untimely death of Peta Murphy, the late member for Dunkley, has necessitated this by-election, and we shouldn't make any comments about the by-election without reflecting on her life and her contribution to this parliament. From the other side of politics, I always thought Peta was a thoroughly decent person, someone who radiated warmth and thoughtfulness, was here for the right reasons and fought for the causes she believed in. And it is tragic that we now have to hold a vote to replace her. But, consistent with the values of our democracy, it will be hard fought, so that the people Dunkley have a choice over who represents them in the future and the direction they want our country to move in. The people of Dunkley, like many other Australians, are struggling right now; they're really, really struggling. I was there on the prepoll booths last week, and I heard firsthand from voter after voter how much they are struggling to make ends meet—how they're struggling with their rent, how they're struggling with their mortgages, how they're struggling with their groceries, how they're struggling with their petrol and how they're struggling with every other aspect of the cost of living. And many of them feel that this government has not heard them, does not understand and does not appreciate how tough things are for them right now. They feel that this government was distracted for its first 18 months, that it was pursuing other priorities that didn't line up with the urgent challenges they faced in their lives—in particular, the pursuit of a divisive change to our Constitution with the Voice. Now, let's be clear. This is going to be a tough by-election for the Liberal Party. And while there is a desperate, last-minute attempt by the government to manage expectations and raise the prospect that the government might lose this by-election, that would be an utterly extraordinary thing. No government since the end of World War II has lost a by-election in their first term. In fact, the last time any first-term government lost a by-election in their first term was in 1932: the East Sydney by-election, where the newly elected UAP government lost the seat to Lang Labor. If you have to go back nearly a century for a precedent to find a by-election being lost by a first-term government, I think that tells you something. We also know that, since World War II, governments on average suffer a 3.6 per cent swing against them at by-elections, and it is 3.2 per cent in Victoria, It's even lower for first-term governments, at 1.5 per cent, and lower again in Victoria, at 0.7 per cent. This government is less than two years old and should be judged against that first-term average of 1.5 per cent. We all know that less than a year ago, in the Aston by-election, the government generated a very strong swing of six per cent to it and achieved its own history by winning a by-election from an opposition for the first time in more than 100 years. So, for the Liberal Party to overturn that six per cent swing against us and achieve more than a 6.3 per cent swing in this by-election is going to be a very tough thing indeed. But I think the people of Dunkley are going to send this government a message. They are going to send this government a message about its misplaced priorities, and they're going to do so through an outstanding local Liberal candidate in Nathan Conroy. Nathan and his family have a great Australian story. He came to this country, like many Australians, at the age of 19 seeking a better life for himself and his family. He came from Ireland, and he grew up as the son of a single mother in public housing. But upon his journey to this country he's made a great contribution. He's made a great contribution in the private sector, in his career and to his community. He's someone who's been elected not just once, not just twice but three times as mayor of his local community, a feat never achieved before in the city of Frankston and a testament to the way in which he is connected to his community, represents his community and will stand up and fight for his community. If the people of Dunkley vote for Nathan on Saturday, they will have a champion here in Canberra—someone who will stand up and tell this government that it has let down the people of Dunkley when it comes to the cost of living, has failed the people of Dunkley when it comes to national security and needs to get its priorities back in order. 16:19 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I have to laugh when those opposite bring forward to this chamber anything that pretends that they care about cost of living, particularly for those who live in the seat of Dunkley. They know that Labor has a plan and that we are delivering cost-of-living relief for every single person in the seat of Dunkley. Do you know how they know it? Because they have opposed every single measure that our government has brought forward to deliver cost-of-living relief for the people of Dunkley. Labor's Cheaper Child Care policy is cutting household expenses for more than 5,800 families in Dunkley. Does that sound like a misplaced priority? I don't think so. You voted against it. Our bulk-billing plan has delivered an estimated 1,024 additional bulk-billing services in its first two months. That hardly sounds like a misplaced priority. It sounds like exactly the priority for the people of Dunkley. You voted against it. Labor's cheaper medicines policy has saved the people of Dunkley $1.7 million on more than 150,000 scripts. That sounds exactly as if we are prioritising cost-of-living relief for the people of Dunkley. Do you know who voted against it? Those opposite voted against it. Labor's tax cuts will deliver real cost-of-living relief in every corner of my home state of Victoria. Last night our tax cuts passed the Senate unanimously, which means Australians will be earning more and keeping more of what they earn. It means 63,000 taxpayers in Dunkley will receive a bigger tax cut than under the Liberals. Eighty-seven per cent of Dunkley residents are better off under Labor's tax cuts. It sounds exactly as if we are prioritising the people of Dunkley. The average tax cut for a resident of Frankston, Seaford or Langwarrin is $1,500. We know that extra money in the pockets of people who live in Dunkley will go a long way to helping achieve cost-of-living relief for them. That's $1,500 more in your pocket from 1 July this year. How unfortunate, then, that the coalition's deputy leader's initial reaction to learning about Labor's tax cuts was to say on national television that the coalition would roll back Labor's tax cuts They didn't want the people of Dunkley to get that extra $1,500 in their pockets from 1 July this year. They wanted you not to get that extra $1,500. We want you to keep more of what you earn. She said it was 'absolutely our position' to roll back Labor's tax cuts. Senator McKenzie 207825 You don't want them to get a train—a train they voted for twice. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator STEWART 299352 Those were her words. The coalition backpedalled on that position so fast they were hoping that nobody would see it. Senator Chisholm 39801 What are the state Liberals doing? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Chisholm, you're not helping. Senator STEWART 299352 But we've seen it, and do you know who else has seen it? The people of Dunkley have seen it. What an absolute farce that those opposite try to bring this motion before the Senate! They don't have a plan for cost-of-living relief. They only want to pick fights. Politics over people is all they are about. They only want to play games. Peter Dutton has nothing to offer the people of our nation. He has opposed every single action that our government has brought forward to ease the cost-of-living pressure that every single person across our nation, on every corner, is experiencing right now. He is all about saying no and dividing people. So make no mistake: by voting for your Liberal candidate in the seat of Dunkley, you are voting for Peter Dutton. That is who you are voting for if you vote for your Liberal candidate, and what a shame! The people of Dunkley deserve better than Dutton. Senator Hume even said today while out in Dunkley that she had never seen so many red shirts. She is right, because the people of Dunkley see through the Liberals' plan. The people of Dunkley know they can trust Labor. The people of Dunkley know that only Labor will deliver practical solutions and a practical plan to deliver cost-of-living relief for every single person living in Dunkley. We don't waste our time in this place with political games and filibustering. We're listening to locals and getting on with the work. And how are we doing that? With an urgent care clinic in Frankston and 12,000 services for the people of Dunkley, and more than one in three of those services delivered to kids under 15. That sounds exactly like we are prioritising the people of Dunkley. 16:25 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania We hear a lot about the cost-of-living crisis, but I think it's about time we put a few facts on the record about the real cause of the cost-of-living crisis. For nearly two generations now we've been sold a great big lie, and that lie has the name of neoliberalism. Deregulation, privatisation, free markets: they promised freedom, but what they've actually delivered is a whole generation, a large number of Australians, living in chains. Workers are facing stagnant wages, vanishing protections and crumbling union power. Meanwhile, basic human needs and human rights, like access to decent housing and access to food and groceries are slipping out of reach for more and more Australians. Colleagues, the social contract is in tatters. The deal was supposed to be simple: work hard, study hard, play by the rules and you could have a decent life. But today that promise is nothing more than a cruel joke for millions of Australians, particularly if they are young. They're told to dream big, but the game is rigged. Young people's futures are far more tied to their parents' worth than they are tied to their own toil. And a new class divide is emerging in Australia between property owners and people who don't own property, who are still struggling on the sidelines. And who is steering this neoliberal shipwreck? That's right, the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics, the Labor and Liberal parties—the architects and enablers of this unfair society. They've turned the housing market into a casino where the house investor always wins and the Australian dream is a distant mirage for most young people. Property prices are skyrocketing and rents are soaring, and what do the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics do? They double down on public subsidies for property speculators. They've crafted an unequal society, eroded social mobility and widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It's a very serious betrayal of the people that we are supposed to be representing in this place, and it is time for a reckoning. We demand policies for the many, not the few. We demand that the government mend the social contract and fix the fractures in that social contract, and we can start by getting serious about tackling the causes of the cost-of-living crisis for giant profiteering corporations. 16:28 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It gives me great pleasure to rise in the chamber today to speak to this motion. This Saturday the men and women of the seat of Dunkley, the communities of Frankston, Carrum Downs, Baxter, Mount Eliza will have their opportunity to send this very bad government a strong message. This government have chosen to back their corporate mates like Alan Joyce over dealing with cost-of-living crises. They've chosen to back a $450-million Voice that broke the hearts of Indigenous communities and also tried to divide Australia, and Australians, particularly in the seat of Dunkley, stood up as one and said, 'No, thank you.' And this community has been struggling under the cost-of-living crisis created by the Albanese Labor government. Mortgages have gone through the roof in Dunkley because these guys and gals can't get their spending under control and have absolutely sent productivity to zero, which means the RBA has had to lift interest rates. But for me, being on the ground with Nathan Conroy, the Liberal candidate for Dunkley, a man that has the commitment and passion to continue to deliver for his community, as he has done as mayor, has been fantastic. People were coming up to him in the street, at the bowling club, in the main street of Frankston, saying: 'I've been a Labor voter my whole life, but I've seen what you've done as mayor. I like the cut of your jib, and I will be voting Liberal for the first time in my life because Nathan is actually the candidate.' Nathan knows, as a young man who has a family in the local community, how tough it is for the community. He has a strong track record of delivering infrastructure projects the community actually needs. I know the Labor Party doesn't want to talk about it, but my team just printed off, from the Prime Minister's own website this afternoon, the 'Labor will deliver the Frankston Baxter rail' press release. This was a promise made to this community over two elections by the Labor Party when Anthony Albanese had my job, when he was the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport. He went down to that community, and he said, in his press release, that a Labor government 'will move quickly to deliver the much-needed Frankston to Baxter rail upgrade'. Guess what this guy did when he became Prime Minister? He cut the project. So the communities, the young people who need to get to Monash University to study nursing or teaching, aren't able to get on an upgraded Frankston to Baxter rail. Peter Dutton and I, and Nathan, made a $900 million commitment and a promise to that community to build that electrification project so that this community has the new stations, the mobility and the connectivity it needs to get around. It's not just their failure to deliver infrastructure to this community and another broken promise; you can't believe this Prime Minister on anything he says. He says he promises he's going to deliver the Frankston to Baxter rail upgrade. What does he do? He cuts it. He says he's going to deliver the stage 3 tax cuts. What does he do? He changes them. The infrastructure commitments made by the Labor Party have been on hold; they're almost phantom commitments. There is nothing being delivered to this community. And just how is the Labor Party again kicking this community in the teeth? Do you know what the top four cars are in Frankston, in Dunkley? The Toyota HiLux, the Ford Ranger, the D-MAX and the Mazda CX-5—all of them are going up in price starting next year, thanks to this government's family car tax. Every primary school car park is full of these types of cars, and this government, right in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, is going to make young families find an additional $15,000 to buy the car they need and love to drive in this community. We don't take Dunkley for granted. Dunkley needs to send Albo a very strong message and vote Liberal on Saturday. 16:33 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I welcome the opportunity to talk about what this government is doing to help Australians right now today, particularly in the seat of Dunkley. Under our government Australians are earning more today, and from 1 July they will keep more of what they earn, too. While those opposite do their politicking and say 'no, no, no' to every piece of assistance on offer to Australians, we'll get on with the job of making sure that nobody is left behind. The results we're seeing across the economy today speak for themselves. We see today that wage growth is back in this country, and it is rising at the fastest rate for over a decade, posting 4.2 per cent for the full year. We also see that, while we know there is an inflation challenge that is ongoing, inflation is moderating. That is what is happening across our economy today. It's at 3.4 per cent today—the lowest level in two years, according to just today's CPI data. These figures show what people in Australia know. These figures show what people in Dunkley know. They show meaningful change for Australians who've been feeling the squeeze for too long. Wages are ahead of inflation today, and inflation is moderating. That's because our economic plan is working, and it is delivering for Australians. Of course, because of the unanimous decision made in this chamber last night, more relief is on the way. Last night this chamber passed our cost-of-living tax bill. It did that unanimously, and it did that for every single Australian taxpayer. We on this side of the chamber want Australians earning more, unlike those opposite. On this side, we want workers to be keeping more of what they earn too. That's why our tax cuts, unlike the old Morrison plan, are for every single Australian taxpayer—every single one of them. On 1 July, 100 per cent of Australians will get a tax cut. On 1 July, 84 per cent of Australians will get a bigger tax cut than what they would have got under Morrison's old plan. On 1 July, 100 per cent of working women will get a tax cut, and 90 per cent of them will be better off than they would have been under the plan of those opposite. This is a tax cut for every single working Australian, not just for some, like those opposite wanted. What we see today is growing wages. We see moderating inflation. We see a fairer tax system for all, including a tax cut for every single working Australian coming on 1 July. Our changes are making a difference right across Australia and in the community of Dunkley, a community that will be well represented by Jodie Belyea. She is a fantastic woman, a fantastic Frankston local, a businesswoman, and a mum of a child at Frankston High School. She is a person of integrity. She is a person of character. She is a person who will represent Dunkley well. Right across the seat of Dunkley, people can see that wages are moving again in this country, strengthening the connection between fair reward and hard work. They can see that we are prioritising good and secure jobs in our labour market. We know the value of working people on this side of the chamber. What they also know, after last night, is that, come 1 July, 70,000 taxpayers in Dunkley will get a tax cut. Like the rest of Australia, nobody in Dunkley will be left behind under our plan. For the people of Dunkley today, wages are moving. We are focused on good, secure jobs for all, and every single taxpayer in Dunkley will get a tax cut under our government. (Time expired) 16:38 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Obviously, I rise here in support of Senator Hume's matter of public importance. The only constant in Australian politics seems to be broken promises. The Dunkley by-election is quickly becoming less of a political poll and more of an IQ test. Are the people of Dunkley really so naive as to believe the empty promises and meaningless reassurances of this government? The Prime Minister has spent weeks insisting that he should be rewarded for having a plan to reduce the cost of living. A plan? What plan? Where's the plan? The failed referendum wasn't about the cost of living. His countless overseas trips haven't been about the cost of living. The Labor Party's insane immigration policies don't constitute a plan to reduce the cost of living. Minister Bowen's reckless renewable energy obsession is not making the cost of living any better; it's making it worse. Repeating that you have a plan over and over is not the same as actually having a plan. The people of Dunkley are smart enough to realise this, and I expect that they will mark the government down for it when they step into the ballot box. After almost two years of this government—two painful years—the people understand that the Prime Minister is all announcement but no delivery, always spruiking a plan that never materialises, always talking about how much he feels for people doing it tough, and then the next minute he's sitting courtside at the tennis or dancing the night away at a private performance with Katy Perry. Like I said, the people of Dunkley are not stupid, and God willing they will not fail the test on Saturday. I'm no big fan of the Liberal Party—that much is clear—but do you know what? They're a whole lot better than the alternative. 16:40 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak on this motion. I've been listening carefully to the contributions of colleagues and I'm just appalled but not shocked at the contempt those opposite have for the people of Dunkley. The people of Dunkley are very clear. They have elected Nathan Conroy three times as their local mayor because he understands them and he has been delivering for them. The electors in Dunkley are no more fools than the electors in Western Australia. They know what is happening to their family budget. They know what has happened under this government in less than two years. Let me share with you what the electors in Dunkley absolutely know. In the last 18 months, their personal income tax has risen by 27 per cent, and headline inflation remains at more than 1.6 above the midpoint of the RBA's target band. For the electors in Dunkley that means that food, housing, insurance and health and education expenses are all growing faster than the headline inflation rate. That means they are paying more, particularly when you think that real wages, despite what those opposite say, are going backwards under the Labor Party. What does this actually mean for the voters in Dunkley? It means that over the past 18 months real net disposable income has fallen by over 8.6 per cent for the average income earner in Dunkley. What does this mean? It's actually a decline in take-home pay for the voters in Dunkley of $8,000 a year. At a time when their income tax is going up and their cost of living is skyrocketing, people with an average mortgage are now paying $24,000 more than they were before Labor came to government. The voters in Dunkley are not stupid, as those opposite seem to think. They know exactly what you have done to their household budgets, what you have done to their mortgages, what you have done to their cost of living. Food is up nine per cent, housing is up 12 per cent, electricity is up 20 per cent, insurance is up by 22 per cent and petrol is up by 27 per cent. Those opposite think they can spin their way through this by-election, but let me tell you what: you absolutely will not. Your bad decisions and wrong priorities are absolutely smashing family budgets—and now the genius policymakers on the other side of the chamber in government are deciding to tax the family vehicle! I know that in Dunkley, just like in my home state of Western Australia, tradies and families have SUVs, four-wheel drives and utes. For the tradies in Dunkley who want to buy a Toyota LandCruiser for work, they will be paying $25,000 more. If they want to buy a Ford Ranger, they will be paying $17,000 more—and the costs go on and on. As Senator Hume said yesterday, our candidate for Dunkley, Nathan Conroy, embodies the spirit of Dunkley—a dedication to community service and also to resilience. His backstory is the same as that of so many of the residents of Dunkley. He came from a very humble background in Scotland. He married a local girl, and they settled down and raised their family in Frankston South. The voters in Frankston, in Dunkley, know what they have in Nathan Conroy, and that is a candidate who will stand up for them, who understands their pain under this government and who understands the pressures that they have each and every day in getting through, because in less than two years those opposite have smashed Australian families financially in a way we have not seen probably since the Second World War. Shame on you all! MATTERS OF URGENCY 80 MATTERS OF URGENCY Israel 80 16:45 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to cease using one of the most secretive military export systems in the world to hide from the public the export of Australian military equipment to the State of Israel, particularly as the Chief Economist of DFAT has acknowledged that DFAT data showing millions of dollars in 'arms and ammunition' being exported to Israel is credible." Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to cease using one of the most secretive military export systems in the world to hide from the public the export of Australian military equipment to the State of Israel, particularly as the Chief Economist of DFAT has acknowledged that DFAT data showing millions of dollars in 'arms and ammunition' being exported to Israel is credible. We know that Australia exports military equipment to Israel, but the Albanese government is determined to mislead the public to avoid accountability. Previously, when I revealed that Australia was exporting military equipment to Israel, Minister Wong accused me and the Greens of misinformation. Keeping this in mind, I want to start by reading from a statement issued in the last few days by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, urging countries to stop exporting military equipment to Israel: The United States and Germany are by far the largest arms exporters and shipments have increased since 7 October 2023. Other military exporters include France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. …   …   … State officials involved in arms exports may be individually criminally liable for aiding and abetting any war crimes … Is the UN also spreading misinformation? And, as this motion mentions, the chief economist of DFAT, Penny Wong's own department, said of DFAT's data, which shows that Australia has exported millions and millions of dollars worth of arms and ammunition to Israel in the last five years, including as recently as October, 'I would say there has been no question or challenge to the credibility of any of the data we publish.' When he says that, is DFAT's chief economist accused of misinformation? What about the Australian companies bragging about the military equipment they sell to the Israeli arms industry and the Israeli Ministry of Defense? These are companies that many Labor MPs have visited. They have taken photos amongst the production lines of the military equipment that has been exported. Are those companies spreading misinformation? What about the glossy government brochures trumpeting Australia's role in the production of F-35 parts, including the mechanisms that open the bomb bay doors of F-35s used by the Israeli military to rain bombs on Gaza? What about those glossy brochures from Defence that were mysteriously scrubbed off Defence's website since October? Is Defence lying too and spreading misinformation? When a Palestinian in Gaza sees an Australian-made drone drifting over their home and highlighting them or their family as a target, are they not understanding what they see? When a spike missile from Rafael demolishes a Gazan hospital, guided by one of the integration kits Australia pumps into the global supply chain or when an Israeli military armoured vehicle drives over the rubble of a home in Gaza, literally protected by Australian steel, are the Palestinians who are experiencing this right now and who are facing these weapons that we exported just imagining it? Is that the line from the government? Far from stopping the arms trade with Israel, the Israeli government won't even acknowledge it's happening. It won't even own up to the violence that they are permitting with weapons that Australia sells. But the public knows and the public sees what has been done, and they can see they've been gaslighted by this government. Today, a two-month-old baby in Gaza died from malnutrition—just one of thousands and thousands of Palestinian children. The thought that the last thing that that child might have heard was the faint buzz of an Australian drone circling above them is an appalling thought. People want Australia to be a force for good in the world and a force for peace, and instead the Albanese government has tied itself to the harm industry, just like the coalition before them. Today we saw that the Albanese government has given Australian weapons company Elbit Systems a billion-dollar contract for Australia's infantry fighting vehicle. This is the same company that announced its expectation of superprofits from the war on Gaza due to 'the increase in demand for our solutions by the Israeli Ministry of Defense'. Make no mistake; Elbit is using the brutal assault on Palestinians to sell its weapons, actively experimenting on—and then working with the Israeli military to celebrate—how effectively they kill Palestinians, and the Australian government is buying hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment from it. How on earth could any government with a moral compass do this? I urge this chamber to support this motion. I urge the government to admit not just to the public but to the world Australia's complicity in what's going on in Gaza. Why hide? Why gaslight? It's because the government knows that the public is against it on this. The government is trying everything it can to disempower the millions of Australians demanding a better world. But enough is enough. It's time for the government to stop the two-way arms race with the State of Israel. It's time to call for an immediate ceasefire. It's time to— (Time expired) 16:50 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to make some remarks on this urgency motion. I do so by starting with the context here. These have been very difficult matters that I know are debated widely across our community, and there are very strong feelings in the Australian society about this foreign conflict. And that's what it is: it is a foreign conflict. It is a matter, therefore, of foreign policy as to how Australia engages. Yes, there are strong domestic feelings on either side of the debate, but ultimately the parliament has to come to a judgement on whether to support the Western alliance and to support the values and principles that we believe in, which I believe are under the greatest threat that has been seen for some decades. I see a large part of this attack on Israel as a broader attack on the West. That is my starting point in this debate. It is undeniable that the 7 October attacks were an almost unbelievable conflict, and that is where this all started. People have debated over the last few months. We know this was the bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust. This now has descended into a very bloody conflict over the last few months. When I reflect on how we would react if we were attacked in the way that Israel was, I think most Australians would expect that there would be a full defence of our society, of our nation, against an attack like that. The idea that Israel, as a democracy and as a partner and an ally of Australia, would not be able to avail itself of a defence and then attempt to destruct the organisation that brought the attack is, I think, patently ridiculous. And so the position Australia has taken has been to support Israel in its attempt to disarm and destruct Hamas. That is the position. I think that is the only position that Australia can take, because any other position would be giving into an organisation that doesn't believe that there should be a Jewish state. That is the bottom line here. The perpetrators of these attacks, the people who started this war, do not believe that Israel should exist. If Israel were not to defend itself against this threat, there would not be a Jewish state. That may be something that some political parties would like to see. It is not something that is a reasonable objective, in my view. Putting that aside though, I understand that there are very strong feelings about this in the community, but the reality is that Australia cannot take any other position, other than to support Israel against this insurgency, which is designed to wipe Israel off the map. Senator Rice 155410 It's genocide! Senator BRAGG 256063 I take the interjection. Yes, it is an attempt at genocide by Hamas, which does want to eradicate the State of Israel from the map. I believe that is what we're looking at now, as we consider this complex matter of foreign policy. There will not be a Jewish state if Hamas is allowed to continue in its way. I note the very strong feelings in the community and the differences of opinion, but I honestly don't believe that there is any alternative other than Israel rooting out and eradicating Hamas with our support and the support of the Western alliance. I don't think there's any other reasonable position that we can take. This is not a blank cheque for Israel, but it is the only position we can take as a fair and decent society. 16:55 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria The government has been very clear on the matter of defence exports to the State of Israel, and the facts have been laid out in the Senate and by Defence officials in Senate estimates as recently as the last round only a few weeks ago, but I want to take the opportunity to reiterate what the government has already made very clear. Australia has not supplied weapons to the State of Israel since the conflict began and for, at least, the past five years. Let me repeat that, so there is no confusion. Australia has not supplied weapons to the State of Israel since the conflict began and for at least the past five years. Australia has a stringent export control framework, which is designed to ensure our military and dual-use items are used responsibly outside of the Commonwealth of Australia. This framework applies to a wide range of goods and technology, including items used for civilian and commercial purposes, and, as such, export permits should not be confused with weapons sales. Defence undertakes a rigorous assessment of each export application. This includes determining if there is an overriding risk that the export may be used in ways contrary to Australia's national interest or international obligations. If this risk is identified, Defence refuses the permit. As a matter of course, this framework accounts for changes in the strategic environment to ensure exports continue to align with our international obligations—noting that Australia is a party to and fully implements all major international arms control treaties, including the Arms Trade Treaty. I would also note the proactive steps that this government is taking to reform and strengthen Australia's export control framework. The committee I chair, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, is holding a hearing this Friday on the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023, which will strengthen Australia's export controls framework. The Hamas-Israel conflict is a deeply distressing issue for many in our community here in Australia, and one where people hold very different views—as is their right. It is only right that our language matters on such issues and matters before us and the truth underpinning them. It's important that we maintain that respect for each other. People come to Australia because they want to live in a country that is peaceful, tolerant and respectful. We must also work together to ensure that distress in our community does not turn into hatred. As community leaders, we need to be careful about how we say or articulate our points in this place. But sadly, time and time again, there are senators who peddle a false narrative on blatant misinformation. Senator Shoebridge 169119 Yes. Some of them are very senior! Senator CICCONE 281503 The Australian government provides information in the interests of transparency, but sadly we continue having interjections from the Australian Greens. The Australian Greens deliberately misinterpret that information for political campaigns. This only divides the community and undermines trust in public institutions. We have seen the cost of that around the world. Repeatedly, we have heard Defence officials advise that Australia has not supplied weapons to the state of Israel, despite the Australian Greens continuing to ignore that advice. For the past five years, not a single weapon has been sent over there. Yet we hear the Greens continue to incorrectly conflate export permits with the sales of weapons. Australia has a stringent control framework which ensures that military and dual-use items are used responsibly outside of Australia in ways that do not violate human rights. It has been a long-held practice of successive Australian governments to seek to be transparent on these matters, as well as balancing national security considerations and commercial sensitivities. All Australians have a right to be safe and feel safe, but everyone should also engage in peaceful and respectful dialogue, not reproduce overseas conflict in Australia. I call on all senators to ensure that they are respectful in the debates in this place. 17:01 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia For years, the Australian government has sought to become one of the world's top arms dealers. In fact, it was a policy taken to an election by the Liberal Party, and endorsed by the Labor Party, that Australia should become one of the top 10 arms dealers in the world—one of the top 10 merchants of death and purveyors of destruction; members of a global fraternity capitalising on the moral failure of war. The last few weeks and months have made very clear what the consequences are of being an arms exporter. What does the result of this industry actually look like? It looks like dead children. It looks like razed cities. It looks like suffering of an unimaginable extent—unimaginable to so many in this place, and yet the daily life, the daily reality, of the people of Gaza. Australia sells what it calls 'defence export permits' to countries all around the world. Now, behind this seemingly innocuous term, this is the truth: the system that has been created to enable Australian corporations to sell arms overseas has been specifically designed to obscure from the Australian people what weapons are being sold, how many weapons are being sold and what those weapons are being used for. The Albanese government has sold defence export permits to the Israeli defence force—equipment that has almost certainly been used to kill innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip and potentially in the West Bank and Lebanon as well. Australia has sold defence export permits to Saudi Arabia and to the United Arab Emirates, two countries that are infamous for their war crimes during the Yemeni civil war, of which, the foreign minister has made clear, her department is aware. Other countries we have sold defence export permits to include Indonesia, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, all of whom are known to have committed serious human rights violations and violated international law, and, yes, committed war crimes. The government has talked a lot about the importance of the international rules based order, but what has become clear is that they do not care how much harm is caused to people, wherever they are in the world, as long as they can make money from selling guns—from selling weapons. Let me tackle head-on the nonsense that is being trotted out here to gaslight the Australian public, to lead the Australian public to believe that our government is innocent of selling weapons to the State of Israel. The incredibly slippery word use by this government, in making false definitions between a bullet and the chip that guides a missile, brings all who let it pass by their tongue into disrepute. The Australian public know exactly what is meant when an Australian corporation sells armour for an armoured vehicle or when a Tasmanian corporation builds the engine for a drone. You think the public fools. They are not, and at the election they will hold you accountable for every one of the times you have tried to imply that they are fools. 17:06 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak on what is a national disgrace. As we watch in horror at the unfolding genocide beamed into our living rooms from the Middle East, the Labor government has used one of the most secretive military export systems in the world to support the State of Israel's atrocities against the people of Gaza. Providing military aid to this regime is a stain on the character of this country and it implicates us all in the slaughter of Palestinian people. Over the last five years, Australia has provided $10 million in arms and ammunition to Israel, and today it's reported that the Australian government has provided Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems with a $190 million defence contract. In doing so, the Labor government is contributing to the means through which these companies continue to facilitate the murder of civilians, obliterating entire families and orphaning children. It's despicable that Labor continues to completely deny Australia's involvement in the supply of arms to Israel. Their complicity in Israel's crimes against humanity must never be forgotten. What hope is there for a lasting peace in Israel and Palestine when countries like Australia deny the reality of what is happening in Gaza, while facilitating the supply of the very weapons that Israel is using to carry out its indefensible campaign of violence? Supporting military exports to aid the genocidal ambitions of an apartheid state is a deep moral failing of this government, and it makes Australia a party to an egregious campaign of desecration and destruction. Ceasefire now. Free Palestine. 17:08 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The Labor government has been boldly telling the Australian people an insidious lie. Since 7 October we've heard senior ministers tell us over and over again that Australia has not been exporting military equipment to the Israeli state. We heard Senator Ciccone just now saying, 'Australia has not supplied weapons'. But the facts just do not add up. That statement means that it's a definitional thing—that parts of F-35 bombers parts of the bomb bay doors, which Australian companies supply, are defined as not being weapons, despite them being the very thing that turns the F-35 from a plane into a bomber. It defines drones not as weapons. It defines armour not as weapons. These are weapons—these are part of weapons. They are parts of Australian sanctioned weapons that are being supplied to the Israeli state and they are part of the genocide which is going on in Gaza. It's outrageous to learn that there are over 50 companies making essential parts for every F-35 fighter jet that the Israel Defense Forces use to kill innocent Palestinian civilians—this, in the most serious of contexts, in circumstances where the International Court of Justice has said there's a credible risk of genocide, where 30,000 people have been killed at the hands of the Israeli government, where 100,000 people have been injured, where millions of people are currently living in absolute fear for their lives in Rafah, starving, desperately trying to keep their children and themselves alive in the throes of famine and disease while being threatened with further invasion and further attacks. In recent days, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri, has said: Intentionally depriving people of food is clearly a war crime. Israel has announced its intention to destroy the Palestinian people, in whole or in part, simply for being Palestinian. In my view as a UN human rights expert, this is now a situation of genocide. This means the state of Israel in its entirety is culpable and should be held accountable—not just individuals or this government or that person. And many of those weapons being used in this genocide have direct ties to Australia. Australia also plays a major role in Israeli and US surveillance. In November, Michael West Media reported: The Pine Gap US surveillance base located outside of Alice Springs in Australia is collecting an enormous range of communications and electronic intelligence from the brutal Gaza-Israel battlefield—and this data is being provided to the Israel Defence Forces— data that is probably directing where those bombs are going to be killing people. Who knows what kinds of violence and devastation the Israel Defense Forces are using this data for, but Australia should and must not play a part in it. Tens of thousands of Australians are on the streets every week, protesting, speaking out for humanity and for Australians to do more. We Greens support them, and we are with them. The Australian community overwhelmingly sees what's going on, and I salute every person who is speaking out. But, instead of helping to end the violence, our Labor government is continuing to lie and sell military equipment to Israel, has cut aid to Palestine and refuses to sign onto the International Court of Justice investigation. Our foreign minister and our Prime Minister mouth weasel words about 'how Israel conducts itself matters' and make hypocritical statements of concern about the plight of the Palestinian people but refuse to take any action to back up these sentiments. These actions and this lack of action are making our nation complicit in a genocide. Enough is enough. We need action from the government, not lies and worthless statements. We have a responsibility to act decisively, to stop the crime of genocide and to support punishment for genocide wherever it occurs, and there is so much that we could be doing to stop— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Rice, just resume your seat. Point of order? Senator Ciccone 281503 I wouldn't normally interrupt a senator's contribution, but I think that over the last week or so the word 'lie' has been deemed to be unparliamentary by not just the President but also the Deputy President. I just would ask that the senator either withdraw or reconsider that use of word in the future. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 That is the case. Senator Rice, would you like to withdraw and rephrase? Senator RICE 155410 I will withdraw and say that the Australian government is misleading the Australian community. There is so much more that Australia could be doing. We must be calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire. We must end all military and security trade and cooperation with Israel. We should be formally, publicly backing South Africa's proceedings against Israel in the ICJ. We should be sanctioning Prime Minister Netanyahu and his entire war cabinet. And, as we called for in our motion that we attempted to debate on Monday, we should be unequivocally withdrawing our support for the state of Israel. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge at the request of Senator McKim be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:18]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 PETITIONS 84 PETITIONS Middle East 84 17:20 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria by leave—I present to the Senate a petition relating to the visas of a local doctor's family who are trapped in Gaza, which is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form. DOCUMENTS 85 DOCUMENTS Consideration 85 COMMITTEES 85 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Bills Committee 85 Scrutiny Digest 85 17:21 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland On behalf of my very good friend Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest No. 3 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 28 February 2024, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 85 Delegated Legislation Monitor 85 17:22 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Senator White, I present Delegated legislation monitor No. 2 of 2024, dated 28 February 2024, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. Law Enforcement Joint Committee 85 Report 85 17:22 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the reports of the committee on its examination of the Australian Federal Police annual report 2022-23 and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission annual report 2022-23, and I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 85 BILLS Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 85

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

Report from Committee 85 17:23 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023, together with accompanying documents. Digital ID Bill 2023, Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 85

Digital ID Bill 2023

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Report from Committee 85 17:23 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Digital ID Bill 2023 and a related bill, together with accompanying documents. COMMITTEES 85 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 85 Report 85 17:23 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the extent and nature of poverty in Australia, together with accompanying documents, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. In September 2022, I first proposed the idea in this place of a national inquiry into poverty, and today, after nearly 18 months, I'm pleased to present the final report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry into poverty. This inquiry was established almost 50 years to the day after the historic Henderson commission of inquiry into poverty, and like the Henderson inquiry, this inquiry investigated poverty at a national level and gathered significant evidence from people, organisations and communities about poverty in Australia. The committee heard from witnesses across the country at nine hearings and a site visit. I'm incredibly proud that the Greens established this inquiry and I'd like to thank my colleagues for their support and participation in the hearings. I'd also like to thank my fellow committee members for their work on the inquiry—in particular, my deputy chair, Senator Marielle Smith—and, of course, the Community Affairs secretariat for the countless hours of work that they have put into this inquiry and the report over the last 18 months. And most of all, I want to thank everyone who participated in the inquiry, particularly people with direct experience of poverty who shared their testimonies. It can be incredibly difficult to share the traumatic experience of living in poverty, but it is immensely powerful and important for parliamentarians to hear your stories and understand the real impacts of government policies. What was made clear throughout the inquiry was that in the nearly half a century since the Henderson inquiry, policy failures and inaction from government after government have left Australia even deeper in a poverty crisis. Evidence presented to the committee made clear that while there were many complex and intersecting structural drivers of poverty in Australia, the current crisis is largely reflective of the failures of our social security system. Australia's social security system should provide people with a social safety net; it should ensure that no-one is living in poverty, and everyone has the opportunity to live with dignity. Yet in hearings held across the country and in submissions, the committee heard personal and devastating testimonies from individuals who are trapped in poverty due to the inadequate rates of income support. Abigail shared: Energy prices went up, inflation went up and the DSP did not. I had to start making difficult decisions. I couldn't save money, it was just impossible. There were some fortnights where I had to decide whether I was buying myself groceries or paying electricity bills. Chibo said: I've never felt so mentally tortured as when I was unemployed, starting with Centrelink treating you like you're the last dirt from the street. Just coming into the whole situation … really impacts on your lifestyle, on your nutrition level, on anything. Jo told us: I am 58 years old. I have been waiting for a total hip replacement for 14 months. I get $683.40 per fortnight on JobSeeker. It should be more than that, but Centrelink have not recognised my new lease that I have uploaded three times or answered my calls … I am going to lose this tooth because I can't afford to see a dentist. And Genevieve said: I have registered for public and social housing. The local housing organisation tells me that the waitlist is 15 years. There's no transitional or priority housing available. They also told me on several occasions that my son and I will be homeless … apparently there are mums and babies, mums and young children, living in cars in Australia, in this affluent country. I don't have any family or friends to stay with, so our situation is dire. I'm under enormous stress. I'm both physically and mentally exhausted. It is completely unacceptable that in one of the wealthiest countries in the world people like Abigail, Chibo, Jo and Genevieve and so many others are having to live in poverty. Urgent and transformative change is needed. The inquiry's interim report that was tabled before the budget last year centred on the experiences of Australians living in poverty and examined the extent and human impact of poverty and its relationship with income support payments. This final report focuses on Australia's social security system, the impacts of poverty on First Nations people and children, and policy mechanisms to alleviate poverty. In response to the evidence presented, the committee makes 14 important recommendations to the government. These include recommendations for the government to take urgent action so that Australians are not living in poverty by considering the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the income support system. There are also specific recommendations regarding changes to the disability support pension, Commonwealth rent assistance, mutual obligations and the employment services system. Other recommendations include actions to reduce the disproportionate impact of poverty on First Nations communities, including committing to the principle of a First Nations led co-design of all First Nations employment services; asking the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to review the adequacy of the remote area allowance and to continue to reform income management with a view to replace compulsory income management schemes; and measures to reduce child poverty, including significant investment to ensure children have access to quality early education, a review of all student payments and the child support scheme. These recommendations are from a majority report of the committee. I, as chair, and the Labor senators on the committee are supportive of these recommendations. The Liberal senators are putting in a dissenting report, so it's unclear to me as to whether they support these recommendations. But the reality is that the agreed recommendations still fall far short of the transformative action needed to eradicate poverty in Australia. As a member of the Greens and chair of this inquiry, I have put forward a suite of additional recommendations which would seriously address the poverty crisis that we face. Throughout the inquiry there was clear evidence that the simplest, most effective and most urgent step to reduce poverty was to raise the rate of all income support payments significantly. Yet sadly, I note that this is not a recommendation of this report. Another glaring omission in the main report is the lack of any recommendation calling on the government to develop a national poverty measure. Overwhelmingly, the committee heard evidence of the importance of national poverty measures and targets to eradicate poverty. Having no committee report recommendations on a national poverty measure, or anything specific on raising the rate, reveals the lack of willingness by the two major parties to fully acknowledge this and take the serious action that's needed to address the poverty crisis. In response to the limitations of the committee recommendations, I, as chair, put forward a suite of additional recommendations that would effectively transform the social security system, target entrenched disadvantage and build on the work of the Henderson inquiry. Notably, these include clear actions for the government: to lift the base rate of all income support payment to $88 a day; to ensure that poverty alleviation, including developing a national measure of poverty, is a key focus of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee; to make a national commitment to reduce child poverty; and to abolish all mutual obligations immediately. Further recommendations are to review the adequacy, effectiveness and culture of Services Australia and the Department of Social Services, and to take critical steps to target the high rates of poverty in First Nations communities by increasing the rate of remote area allowance, expanding access to Services Australia services in remote areas and abolishing all forms of compulsory income management. My recommendations also address other issues, including the age of independence, the disability support pension, parenting payment and Commonwealth rent assistance. These recommendations build on the work of advocates, organisations and researchers who have been advocating tirelessly for an end to poverty in Australia. They also reflect longstanding calls by the Australian Greens. Unlike the Labor and Liberal parties, the Greens have consistently called for a significant increase in income support and for a fairer social security system. We believe that a socially just, democratic and sustainable society rests on the provision of an unconditional liveable income, complemented by the provision of universal social services. Before the election, Prime Minister Albanese made a promise to leave no-one behind. But since Labor came into government we have seen them implement a series of centre-right policies that benefit big corporates and the well-off, and leave people living in poverty without access to essential health services and struggling to access affordable housing. This inquiry has laid bare the depth and breadth of the poverty crisis in Australia. The Labor government cannot just dismiss this evidence, as they and so many governments before them have done with the Henderson inquiry. Australians cannot afford another 50 years of meaningless rhetoric and policies that trap people in poverty. For the sake of the wellbeing of our entire community, I call on the Labor government to implement both the recommendations of the main committee report and my chair's recommendations in the upcoming federal budget. 17:33 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Over three million Australians are currently impacted by poverty. It's complex and multifaceted; it has no one central cause or driver, and it arises in many different situations. Poverty refers to people not only on income support payments but also to those experiencing intergenerational poverty, new poverty and even the working poor. Poverty is not a simple concern and it has no simple solution. It's unfortunate that after all the work of this committee over a long period of time, the committee's central focus in the report is to raise the rate of income support. In this report the government and the Australian Greens have put ideology before results. They've reduced poverty to a dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed. It does a disservice to diminish poverty to such a simple dimension. This false assumption fundamentally misunderstands the issue and does nothing to truly alleviate poverty in Australia. Poverty is on the rise, and it's on the rise for one key reason. The economic mismanagement by this government has been part of that. The cost of mortgages is up, the cost of groceries went up and the cost of electricity has gone up under this government's watch. Under this government's watch, cost of living has skyrocketed, and every Australian knows that. While distracted by its failed $450 million Voice referendum, Labor ignored the fact that the number of working poor was exploding on its watch. People with a mortgage are paying an interest bill that is $24,000 a year higher after a dozen interest rate hikes resulting from Labor's inflation failures. These additional costs have been passed on to renters. All in all, Australians are thousands of dollars worse off as Labor's economic mismanagement further reduces their disposable income. This is why the working poor—a demographic too often overlooked and invisible in the majority report—is exploding in size. There are Australians who purchased their home in an effort to plan for a future, and they should not be ignored. Until the Prime Minister offers real cost-of-living relief, not tax cuts worth only $15, there will be no real alleviation of poverty in our nation, just as there were no real increases in real wages. Fifteen dollars a week is not a genuine offering when it's already eroded by the cost of living—and it's not even available until 1 July. That's not cost-of-living relief. Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the report refer to increasing the payment rate for those on JobSeeker and similar payments and pensions and for those who rely on Commonwealth rent assistance. These recommendations mark the government's and the Greens' primary solution to poverty: to raise the rate for all income support payments. The government passed many of these propositions last year in the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023. The coalition supported some but not all recommendations. We did not support four recommendations. Increasing support payments misunderstands the purpose of welfare. JobSeeker is called such because it is for people seeking jobs. JobSeeker exists to enable Australians who are struggling to find work. Ultimately, the best form of welfare is a job. Increasing support payments can disincentivise working. Increasing welfare will never create new jobs. Supporting small business supports jobs, and a job offers a buffer to poverty. With Australia close to full employment, the Prime Minister must now be focused on ensuring that JobSeeker enables increasing numbers of people to find work. JobSeeker is not a wage replacement; it's a wage supplement. As of March 2023 there are 800,000 JobSeeker recipients. A vast majority—around 75 per cent—show no earning, zero, meaning that they participated in no part-time work. This is simply unacceptable, and increasing payments will not fix that. The relevant minister, Amanda Rishworth, should listen to her department, who, in a submission to the Community Affairs Committee, noted: Economic participation is the best way to alleviate poverty and disadvantage. This is widely supported in the academic literature. Economic growth leads to the expansion of opportunity and reduces occurrences of poverty. It's a shame to see the government's final recommendations flying in the face of that submission. Income support must continue to be JobSeeker and not 'job replacer'. Rather than just throwing money at the problem, the coalition supports amending JobSeeker's salary thresholds. It is a win-win for jobseekers, for employers and for taxpayers. If the income-free area for those on JobSeeker and related working-age payments is increased, that would not only allow current income support payments to be maintained but also allow recipients to gain valuable work experience and supplement their income without those opportunities impacting their payments. These benefits could extend beyond just the unemployed. As of September 2022, around five million Australians were receiving income support payments, the bulk of these age pensions. Groups such as elderly dependants and veterans should be able to access the threshold and increase and boost their incomes, too. Such a policy also goes further than any recommendation in the final report on alleviating the pressures currently faced by the working poor. The report also proposes the removal of mutual obligation. That's a terrible idea. Mutual obligation is basic to the welfare social contract. It refers to the agreement between the government and the welfare recipient that requires recipients to actively seek work in order to receive payments. Removing this further disincentivises entering the workforce. Keeping it forces those on income support to be engaged in the job market and increases the likelihood that they will find future employment. It gives impoverished Australians the means to focus on building and maintaining the skills and capacity they need to transition to the workforce. I have been an employer of hundreds and hundreds of Australians, many of them coming off welfare, and the people that get to the front of the line are people that have some experience and training. They've shown some initiative, they've done something to show that they've got work ethics and they want to work. But yet again the Albanese government, in cahoots with the Greens, has published recommendations that will produce the exact opposite of that desired effect. I've spoken at length about the best way to alleviate poverty, and that is to incentivise employment. But much more needs to be done. Intergenerational disadvantage can be broken. In fact, this is one area where the government can take immediate action and reap the benefits. With better training and education, all Australians will be better equipped for the workforce, and a skilled Australian industry will be better for it. Building on the skills Australians need to transition to the workforce will help them remain there. Education and training increases opportunity for employment. It increases the opportunity for promotion and it limits the scourge of poverty. It's that simple. Yet it's not being sufficiently enforced by this government. In the Northern Territory, average attendance in remote schools is less than 50 per cent, and I reckon that figure is woefully overrepresented. As long as this continues, the cycle of poverty and welfare dependency will not be broken. End the poverty of low expectations and end the culture of welfare dependency. Effective income management is also critical to ending all types of poverty. The Greens, the Labor Party and Senator Pocock should travel to those areas that they did so much damage in when they removed the cashless debit card. Just go there and ask the locals. You can't see it from your comfortable homes in the cities, thousands of kilometres from where the action is. The abolition of that card has led to income support payments being misused. Instead of money for food and family, it can now be spent on grog and gambling. Addiction will ensure that. Crime in rural communities is ravaging some of those townships and their people. The data from former cashless debit card trial sites bears this out. In Bundaberg, domestic and family violence offences rose 24 per cent. In Kalgoorlie-Boulder, which I just recently visited, breaches of violence and restraint orders shot up by 48 per cent. Impoverished communities are more dangerous communities. Increased prosperity and ambition make all Australians safer, and it's good for all Australians. Yet this government continues to obfuscate and hide the statistics that make this obvious. For the six cashless debit card trials, the Albanese government is yet to provide data that demonstrates the lives of people living there have been improved since the card's removal. There must be more extensive and accurate data and information available if we are to end poverty in Australia. The report is heavily flawed and could produce perverse outcomes. Australia needs more men and women in its workforce. Raising income support payments with no mutual obligation will do just the opposite. Children need to be at school, not on our streets. Without quality education and training, poverty won't go away. I encourage all senators in this place to think carefully about the consequences. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Law Enforcement Joint Committee 89 Report 89 17:44 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to speak about the committee's report Examination of the Australian Federal Police annual report 2022-23. One of the committee's key roles is to provide an oversight of the AFP by examining each of the AFP's annual reports. The role recognises that agencies which have been granted strong coercive powers, such as the Australian Federal Police, should be subject to additional oversight. The committee is pleased to report that it has not identified any major areas of concern. The AFP met almost all of its performance criteria during the reporting period. The committee recognises the increasing complexity and long lead times of some Australian Federal Police cases which did not fit neatly into an annual report period. The inclusion of case studies containing the details of particular operations is therefore helpful to illustrate this aspect of police work. In 2022-23 the AFP: disrupted criminal activities on 221 occasions across 40 countries, including at home; seized 30 tonnes of illicit drugs and precursors, resulting in $11.8 billion in avoided harm to our community; restrained over $352 million in assets; and charged 141 people as a result of child exploitation investigations. The committee recently tabled its report on its inquiry into law enforcement capabilities in relation to child exploitation. At its public hearing on the AFP's annual report, the committee followed up with the AFP about the ongoing work in this area. As noted in its report, the committee shares the concerns of the Australian Federal Police in relation to the effect of encryption on reporting child exploitation. The AFP Commissioner, Mr Kershaw, was very clear that the move towards encryption will be one of the biggest issues they face when it comes to offences committed online including child exploitation. The committee will continue to monitor this area to see if there is, as expected, a drop in reporting as a result of encryption. The committee recently commenced an inquiry into the capabilities of law enforcement to respond to cybercrime, so this will be an area of focus for the committee over the next reporting period. The committee spoke to the AFP about the results of the 2022 staff survey which pointed to areas for improvement, particularly in relation to communications. The AFP outlined steps taken to improve the results, and the committee will be reviewing the 2023 staff survey to see whether these actions have resulted in improved results. The committee was pleased to hear of the continued rollout and uptake of the SHIELD program, which is the AFP's main support service for staff. I commend the AFP for continuing to perform well in the service of the Australian community. I also wish to thank the AFP officers who gave evidence to the committee, as well as my fellow committee members for their contribution to the committee's important scrutiny work. I would also like to place on record our committee's appreciation for the secretariat, for their contribution to this important work. I would also like to speak about the committee's examination of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission'sannual report 2022-23. ACIC bears an important responsibility in relation to Australian law enforcement. Its stated purpose is 'To protect Australia from serious criminal threats by collecting, assessing and disseminating intelligence and policing information'. Recognising that the ACIC has been granted strong coercive powers, the committee examines each ACIC annual report as part of its ongoing parliamentary oversight. The 2022-23 annual report is broadly positive regarding the ACIC's performance. For instance, during the reporting period: the ACIC's intelligence contributed to 78 disruptions of criminal entities; the ACIC's National Criminal Intelligence System grew from approximately 2,900 unique users to over 36,000; and the ACIC processed 7.2 million nationally coordinated criminal history checks. The annual report also highlights the completed transition to the NAFIS NextGen, which is an improved fingerprint-matching capability. In addition, the ACIC recently established the Fraud Fusion Centre to help to counter exploitation of government programs by serious and organised crime. A key interest of this committee is the National Firearms Register. In December 2023, National Cabinet agreed to work together to ensure the register is fully operational within four years. The ACIC will be responsible for providing the technical arm of the program—that is, the register itself—and officials reported that work on this is well under way. The committee will closely monitor the ACIC's progress, considering that a national register will greatly benefit not only law enforcement but also our community safety. The committee observed that the ACIC fully met seven of its performance criteria; subsequently, it met three and partially met three. The committee acknowledges that the ACIC's rationale in relation to the targets were not fully met, and it is positive that the ACIC is already implementing measures to redress some of the shortcomings, such as improvements to the National Police Checking Service. Further matters are discussed in the committee's report, but on behalf of the committee I thank the former CEO of ACIC, Mr Michael Phelan APM, whose five-year term as CEO concluded on November 2022. I also thank Mr Matthew Rippon, who acted as CEO until recently while a selection process was undertaken. I welcome the incoming CEO, Ms Heather Cook, and I look forward to the contribution she will make to the ACIC and the Australian law enforcement. I thank the ACIC for providing a satisfactory annual report and look forward to the committee's ongoing oversight of the agencies. I commend this report to the Senate, along with the annual report of the Australian Federal Police, and note the very important work that both of these organisations do in combating organised crime and protecting the Australian community. 17:51 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I also rise to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's reports on the examination of the Australian Federal Police annual report. At the outset, I acknowledge that, yes, there is a significant amount of important work done by the Australian Federal Police, but they have been some very disturbing trends in the behaviour of the Australian Federal Police that were not addressed in the committee's report. Indeed, there is some conduct of the Australian Federal Police that I believe and that the Greens believe have bought the Australian Federal Police into some significant disrepute. That occurred in the last financial year. That was the financial year in which the Australian Federal Police decided to issue a major covert operations order against a 13-year-old boy with autism and an IQ in the low 70s, whose family had come to them seeking help. On examining the evidence that was eventually presented when the AFP sought to prosecute that boy for very serious terrorism offences, a magistrate found that, instead of helping, the AFP drove that child towards extremism and put in his mind the very concept of becoming a sniper and a suicide bomber. The AFP taught that child about radical Islam—a 13-year-old boy with autism. That happened in the financial year of 2022-23, which this annual report covers. The magistrate threw the case out—they were so disgusted by the evidence presented that they made the highly unusual step of issuing a permanent stay. And we have not heard a whisper from the government about that conduct. We've heard nothing from the Attorney-General—and the AFP lies in his portfolio—nothing from the chair of the oversight committee, nothing—not one word about it. How could any government who has responsibility for the oversight of the police allow that conduct to go unmentioned? By not seeking accountability of the Australian Federal Police, by not mentioning that here today, by the ongoing silence on it of the Attorney-General, they are effectively giving the green light for further such conduct by the AFP. What is deeply troubling is that, in the last budget estimates session, when I challenged the Australian Federal Police about their conduct and asked them how they could justify the behaviour of their covert operative that was so comprehensively rejected and criticised by the magistrate, and when I asked the deputy commissioner who issued the major covert operations order against the child if he would do it again, knowing what he knew now, he said yes, he'd do it again. The reason he can say that is that this government has delivered no consequences to the AFP and permitted no consequences for that kind of behaviour. That's a deep failure of the government: to be silent on it, to permit no accountability on it and to require no accountability on it. And it's not just the AFP of course. The same lack of accountability applies to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who insisted upon this prosecution having been in the public interest and wasn't even undertaking a review. Yes, let's acknowledge some of the important work the AFP does. I particularly want to acknowledge the staff in the AFP who are largely based in Brisbane, who are identifying child exploitation and child abuse material, and seeking to keep those kids safe and hold perpetrators to account. They do extraordinary work and I want to acknowledge that work. But in doing that, in just celebrating the good work, which is what we heard from the chair of the committee and what we hear from the government, and not holding them to account when they so obviously fail, ultimately does no favours to the Australian Federal Police, and it definitely does no favours to the public. On one final matter: we heard the chair of the oversight committee talk about the surveys from the Australian Federal Police. Annually, the Australian Federal Police have done surveys which assess how the staff feel and what the staff attitude is to senior leadership and to the direction of the Australian Federal Police. Year after year after year, those surveys, which are published, show an incredible lack of faith in the senior leadership. Only a tiny proportion of the people who work in the AFP are supportive of the senior leadership. They complain of nepotism, of favouritism, of an unhealthy culture, about not being supported, of not having the systems in place to support them doing their work and of not being listened to. It's year after year after year. When you hear the opinions of the people who actually do the work in the AFP—not the senior management but the people doing the day-to-day work of policing—they have been viciously critical of the leadership. Those surveys have been deeply embarrassing to the AFP. So what did they do last year? They changed the survey. They removed almost all the questions asking for an opinion about the senior leadership. They removed almost all the questions asking for opinions about how the systems worked. They just pulled them out of the survey. It's the most blatant example of self-censorship you could possibly imagine. But, even though that had been done, the 2023 survey is still an indictment on the senior leadership of the AFP. Again, only 19 per cent of staff surveyed actually have faith in senior leadership. That's less than one in five who give a tick to the senior leadership. When it was put to them by a journalist at the Canberra Times about how they had deleted all the critical questions from their 2023 report, we got this verbiage from the AFP: 'The AFP has taken a pro-active approach to better understand psychosocial hazards in the workplace by focusing on those matters in the 2023 'In Focus' survey. This data is key to building a safe workplace in an environment of increasingly high-risk work.' It's a word salad, no doubt because they're deeply embarrassed that somebody pointed out the fact that senior leadership took all of the hard questions out of the survey. What's really offensive about it is that, in responding to the deeply critical 2022 survey, which had that trend of criticism of senior leadership, Commissioner Kershaw sent an email out to all of the staff comparing them to cattle, with a big picture of a cow, saying: 'You have been herd. We've heard what you had to say.' It was some sort of play on words, comparing his staff to a herd of cattle and the use of the word 'heard'. I don't know who thought that was a good idea. Commissioner Kershaw obviously did, because he sent the email out comparing his staff to a herd of cattle and saying he'd heard them in 2022. It turns out that he did. He heard it so loudly that he never wanted to hear it again, so he chopped all of the critical questions out of the 2023 survey. So I'm sure that the thousands of staff in the AFP are feeling really heard by Commissioner Kershaw right now—so heard that he's silenced them. Again, there's been nothing from the chair and nothing from the government. This is all business as usual. You couldn't make up some of this stuff about the AFP. It's like the Keystone Cops parading around as the senior leadership. They parade around as an elite squad, but they act like a bunch of amateurs—and worse. They should be held to account. Let's acknowledge the good work of thousands of largely lower ranked members in the AFP who do that amazing work—I can't imagine how they do it—looking at child exploitation and abuse material, bringing offenders to account and protecting kids. Let's celebrate that work and acknowledge the work that those staff do in the AFP. But we do them no favours, we do the public no favours and we ultimately do the AFP no favours by failing to hold the senior leadership to account. Question agreed to. Consideration 92 DOCUMENTS 92 DOCUMENTS Department of Health and Aged Care 92 Order for the Production of Documents 92 18:02 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Aged Care Taskforce. BILLS 92 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024 92

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024

First Reading 92 18:03 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 92 18:04 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— Today I am introducing a Bill to establish a clear legal basis for means testing the income from military invalidity payments affected by the Full Federal Court's 2020 'Douglas decision', when recipients of those payments also seek support through our income support system. The Bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, to give these veterans certainty and to maintain equity in the way different income support recipients are means-tested. This Bill is necessary as a result of the Douglas decision determination that relevant veteran invalidity benefits paid from the Defence Force Retirements and Death Benefits Scheme and Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme should be taxed as superannuation lump sums rather than defined benefit superannuation income streams. In our response to this decision, the Albanese Government passed legislation, ensuring affected veterans could retain the tax benefits of the decision and the benefits that flowed from any resulting changes to their taxable income in areas such as Family Tax Benefit and child care subsidy. We also prevented adverse impacts, including on veterans with child support obligations—or their ex-partners—by recognising the Douglas decision as a special circumstance and proactively remediating any child support debts caused by changes to taxable income through an Act of Grace strategy. The Bill I am introducing today has no impact on the Government's existing response to the Douglas decision, however it is now clear the Court's findings have had additional consequences for the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Analysis of these consequences has now identified there is no clear, legal basis for means testing these payments when recipients also seek support through Australia's income support system. One of the key features of our social security system is that it is means-tested, to ensure that this taxpayer-funded support is targeted to people who need it most, based on their need and circumstances. These means testing arrangements—which are generally applied to all applicants in the system—include an income test and an asset test. Veterans who receive a relevant military invalidity payment from the DFRDB and MSB schemes can be assessed on whether they can get further support from the social security system, and the level of that support. To do this, historically we have always treated them as asset-test exempt defined benefit income streams in the means test. This is the same way we treat other veteran retirement benefit payments from the same DFRDB and MSB schemes. But because of the Douglas decision, it is now understood that this means-testing treatment for social security purposes—as an asset test exempt defined benefit income stream—can no longer apply to the invalidity benefit payments. When we apply the framework used to assess income types in the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act, it is apparent there is no explicit, alternative means-testing treatment for these payments that we can use instead. The only alternative identified is clearly not intended for statutory superannuation benefits of this type. Analysis shows the only other way these income streams could implicitly be treated under existing legislation has significant legal risk and uncertainty, is unclear, and creates inequities in the system, including among veterans themselves. This is why we need a clear way forward. To this end, the Bill introduces a new classification of "military invalidity pension income stream" in the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act, to include the military invalidity payments affected by the Douglas decision. The assessment of a military invalidity pension income stream within the means test is designed to produce the same result as the historical assessments of the affected invalidity payments. In addition, the Bill will provide for military invalidity pension income streams to be considered "asset-test exempt income streams" under the Acts, ensuring the payments remain exempt from the assets-test for income support. Together, these provisions are intended to ensure veterans with income from a military invalidity pension income stream receive income support at the same rate they were always intended to receive, and consistent with outcomes for other veterans. Importantly, in almost every case these amendments will result in no changes to payment rates for the approximately 850 veterans (or their partners) who receive one of these invalidity benefit payments and also an income support payment from the social security system. An alternative option the Government could have taken would be to make amendments to classify these invalidity benefit payments as 'lump sums' for the purposes of income support legislation. This would adopt the same nomenclature as the definition the Douglas decision assigned in tax law. But the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act are not bound by the way different types of payments are classified in the tax system. And in fact, if the lump sum treatment was applied to these payments in the social security means test, because of the way that treatment works, these veterans would actually be worse off. This is because it would have the effect of reducing recipients' rates of support from the social security system, leaving them with less money in their pockets. That is why, with this Bill, I am introducing means testing arrangements that are designed to mirror the assessments obtained from the previous treatment before the Douglas decision. These amendments will ensure that the relevant invalidity payments can be means tested for income support in a way that delivers the same outcomes for these veterans as the pre-Douglas arrangements. This will mean veterans and their partners continue to receive income support at a rate that is consistent with entitlements for other income support recipients, including the other DFRDB and MSB veterans who receive retirement defined benefit income streams, under existing arrangements. These provisions will apply in determining income support payment rates for existing social security recipients who have income from a military invalidity pension income stream, as well as new applicants, from the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The Bill also includes a provision to validate past assessments of the affected invalidity payments under the means test for income support, as these may have become invalid due to the payments being treated as asset-test exempt defined benefit income streams, which the Douglas decision now precludes. Importantly, this provision confirms past means test assessments without removing people's rights of review or appeal in cases where decisions may have been invalid for other reasons. The Bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, or the Repatriation Commission, to specify additional income stream payments as military invalidity pension income streams by means of a disallowable instrument. This will allow for other incapacity payments from legacy superannuation schemes—that may also be found to no longer meet the requirements for being treated as an asset test exempt defined benefit income stream for reasons independent of Douglas—to be included down the track. In summary, this Bill: establishes a clear legal basis for means testing veterans' invalidity benefits from the DFRDB and MSB schemes, when recipients of these benefits also wish to seek support through the income support system; delivers the same outcomes for these veterans as the pre-Douglas arrangements; and preserves the equity of Australia's social security system, by ensuring they continue to receive income support at a rate that is consistent with entitlements for other recipients, and critically, other veterans. I commend this Bill. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024 94

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 94 18:04 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 94 18:05 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— The amendments which were passed in the Closing Loopholes legislation and which were subsequently supported by this House will establish a right to disconnect in Part 2-9 of the Fair Work Act and require modern awards to include terms giving effect to those rights. The right will provide that employees are not required to monitor, read or respond to contact from their employer, or work-related contact from third parties, outside of their work hours—unless refusing to do so is unreasonable. It shouldn't be controversial that people should be paid when they work, and yet essentially that's all this issue is about. Where disputes about the right to disconnect arise, employers and employees will be able to apply to the Fair Work Commission for stop orders. This Bill ensures that the right to disconnect, introduced in the Fair Work Act by our Closing Loopholes legislation, will operate as it should. A lot's been said about the amendment that was moved in the Senate. It's important to note this—the amendment did not explicitly include criminal penalties, but there's an interaction with section 675(1) of the Fair Work Act, and because of that interaction it's necessary to make a further amendment to rule out criminal penalties. The amendments in the Bill will insert a new paragraph into subsection 675(2) of the Fair Work Act so that if a person contravenes a Commission order about the new right to disconnect, it will not amount to an offence under section 675 of the Act and will not expose that person to a criminal penalty. The amendments in this Bill will commence at the same time as the other right to disconnect provisions—that is six months after Royal Assent of the Closing Loopholes legislation, noting that for small business, the right to disconnect provisions will not commence for an additional 12 months. My understanding is no member of Parliament supports criminal penalties applying. But for reasons I will never understand, Coalition members refused to grant leave for this issue to be corrected last Thursday. Despite that, I hope that, now that it is in a separate bill, the Coalition—and indeed all members—will now support this legislation which will ensure that criminal penalties do not apply. Debate adjourned. PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 94 PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Address to Parliament 94 18:05 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 The President has received a message from the House of Representatives inviting senators to attend a meeting of the House on Thursday 29 February 2024 for an address by His Excellency Ferdinand Marcos Jr, President of the Republic of the Philippines. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 95 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Social Security (Administration) (Declared Child Protection State—New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria) Determination 2023, Social Security (Administration) (Recognised State or Territory—Northern Territory) Determination 2023, Social Security (Administration) (Specified Income Management Territory—Northern Territory) Instrument 2023 95 Disallowance 95 18:06 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the following legislative instruments, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed: (a) the Social Security (Administration) (Declared Child Protection State—New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria) Determination 2023 [F2023L01274]; (b) the Social Security (Administration) (Recognised State or Territory—Northern Territory) Determination 2023 [F2023L01273]; and (c) the Social Security (Administration) (Specified Income Management Territory—Northern Territory) Instrument 2023 [F2023L01269]. Before the last federal election, Labor made a clear commitment to end compulsory income management. They campaigned hard to abolish the cashless debit card and made clear their belief that the BasicsCard should be voluntary. Only one month before the federal election in 2022, Linda Burney, who was then Labor's social services spokesperson, said, 'If people want to be on those sorts of income management, then that's their decision.' The Greens and everyone who had been tirelessly campaigning against compulsory income management since its introduction in 2007 welcomed those words. We were hopeful that the Labor Party would finally take a stand against this harmful and racist system. We never imagined exactly how cynical the approach would prove to be. Instead of abolishing compulsory income management as promised, Labor rebranded and expanded it. They took all the punitive and discriminatory elements of the cashless debit card and relaunched it as the SmartCard regime, which is a sneaky and insidious framework that significantly expands the minister's powers to roll out compulsory income management in new areas. Labor also broke their promise to make the BasicsCard voluntary. Instead, they told people on the card that they had two options: they could stay put or they could move to the SmartCard, effectively trapping over 20,000 people under compulsory income management. Since the introduction of the SmartCard regime, Labor has tabled a series of legislative instruments that seek to perpetuate the punitive system of compulsory income management. To date, the Greens have moved to disallow the majority of these instruments. Unsurprisingly, Labor and Liberal have joined together to vote our disallowance motions down. Today we are moving to disallow three more legislative instruments that Labor introduced last year. These instruments are the 'declared child protection state' determination, the 'recognised state or territory—Northern Territory' determination and the 'specified income management territory—Northern Territory' instrument. These instruments enable the income management, or BasicsCard, regime to continue to operate until 1 July 2026. Under this regime, certain groups of people on social security payments can be forcibly placed on the BasicsCard and have 50 to 70 per cent of their income quarantined. This can happen to you if you live in a certain area and you've been on a social security payment for over a year, you're a young person on income support for an extended period or you're assessed as 'vulnerable' due to experiencing things like financial hardship, domestic violence or being at risk of homelessness. Put yourself in the shoes of a person who's on income support. Every single person on income support who is renting is at risk of homelessness. This means that this BasicsCard, this compulsory income management, can be rolled out on a whim to actively suppress these people, through no fault of their own, just because they are at risk of homelessness. You can also be placed on the BasicsCard and have your income support payments forcibly quarantined if a child protection worker says that that should be the case—or, if you live in the Northern Territory, the Department of Health refers you to the program. The system is horrifying. It's paternalistic. It's something from a dystopian novel, and it is also the reality of tens of thousands of people—the overwhelming majority of whom are First Nations people who live in the Northern Territory. The BasicsCard was one of the many racist and discriminatory policies the Howard government introduced in 2007 as part of the Northern Territory intervention. This regime was expanded by Labor in 2010 to a wider cohort of income support recipients. As of December, the Department of Social Services estimates there are over 21,000 people with an active BasicsCard and over 8,000 people on the SmartCard regime. Around 90 per cent of the people in each regime live in the Northern Territory, and around 80 per cent of those in the Northern Territory on the SmartCard are First Nations peoples. Of the people in the Northern Territory, approximately only two per cent have volunteered to be on the SmartCard and about eight per cent of people have volunteered to be on the BasicsCard. I note that in other states where income management is in effect the rates of voluntary income management are proportionally higher. But the fact remains: for the vast majority of people with a SmartCard or a BasicsCard, their autonomy is completely removed. Compulsory income management doesn't work. That's why this is so serious. If it worked, you'd think there might be an argument for it. But it doesn't work. It is paternalism on steroids. For nearly two decades, since the introduction of the BasicsCard, we've heard evidence from First Nations people, parliamentary inquiries, the Australian Human Rights Commission, researchers and community organisations about the failures of compulsory income management as a tool for alleviating poverty, addiction and other social issues. We've heard time and time again how these disproportionally impact First Nations peoples and violate human rights. This long history of evidence was reinforced by the recent Senate Community Affairs References Committee's report on the review of these legislative instruments on income management. This review examined six legislative instruments made by the Labor government—the three we are seeking to disallow today, the two we attempted to disallow last year and, finally, the volunteers determination. Overwhelmingly, the committee heard evidence that compulsory income management should be abolished and that these regimes are ineffective and incompatible with human rights. 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. …   …   … 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. Mr Christopher Arnott, director of First Nations owned and operated think tank the Kulila Research and Advocacy Institute, told the committee: If you put someone on income management because they're suffering from alcoholism or drug addiction, then taking away the ability to access cash isn't going to fix the problem, because addiction is a medical issue … You can't just remove cash and not expect people to find other means. You're not addressing the problem. You're not going to treat anyone. If you go to a doctor to deal with a medical condition—you can't just take away one component and not treat the underlying cause. Mrs Leeann Ramsamy, the chief executive officer of the Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, noted: When we put a blanket over things and we make it mandatory, that's when we start to breach people's human rights around managing their own money. Even if it is unemployment, it's still part of their economy while they're unemployed.    …   …   … Income management should be a choice. Someone may opt in and may find it very beneficial, but we can't say that that's going to be the majority. Legislation cannot decide what's best for the majority of women. Not all women and not all families need their income managed. Charmaine Crowe from the Australian Council of Social Service told the committee: So the compulsory income management policy that is operating in the Northern Territory and in a select few other areas essentially discriminates against people on the basis of where they live and the difficulties they may have in securing a job. That's essentially what you're doing. As has been—for quite some time now—found, it doesn't do anything to increase people's chances of getting paid work. Therefore, why are we subjecting people who are long-term unemployed to this very stigmatising and paternalistic policy that, particularly now—but it has always done so—grossly discriminates against First Nations people? Not only did evidence at this inquiry reinforce years of proof showing that compulsory income management doesn't work, but it also exposed the complete inadequacy and unsuitability of the legislative instruments underpinning Labor's Enhanced Income Management regime. Despite the fact that we heard from a range of organisations and people across various sectors—including the Queensland Indigenous Family Violence Legal Service, Economic Justice Australia, the Accountable Income Management Network and the Australian Council of Social Service—an overwhelming majority of inquiry participants told the committee that they had not been consulted on the legislative instruments under review. Additionally, many participants raised concerns about the level and type of consultation with First Nations communities. There were other significant issues that were raised through the inquiry about these legislative instruments. These were the lack of relevant and adequate explanatory material, which restricts the parliament's and the public's ability to properly scrutinise their impact, and the failure to address years of documented human rights concerns that have been 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. It's completely astounding, given this and with the evidence being so strongly against compulsory income management, that the Labor government has tabled these instruments in the first place. However, sadly, they will most likely vote down this disallowance motion today. So, Labor, what did happen to your promise to leave no-one behind and hold no-one back? Poverty is a political choice, and since coming into government Labor has consistently made choice after choice to keep people in poverty, by maintaining this racist and discriminatory policy of compulsory income management, despite pledging otherwise before the election, and by refusing to listen to the calls of unemployed advocates, social service organisations and Labor's very own hand-picked Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to substantially raise the rate of income support, instead opting for piecemeal changes that keep people on income support well below the poverty line. Labor continues to publicly back the punitive system of mutual obligations and the privatised model of human services, despite media report after media report and the harrowing evidence given at the Workforce Australia inquiry, which again exposed just how harmful, largely ineffective and pointless these systems are. Finally, Labor recently left people on income support and everyone earning less than $18,000 a year completely out of their cost-of-living tax cuts measures. Instead of supporting people and providing support to low-income earners, they gave tax cuts to the wealthy—$4,500 a year to everyone earning over $200,000—rather than supporting the people who need it the most. Labor can't be trusted with our social security system. If they actually cared about supporting people in poverty, and if they listened to people impacted by their policies, they would raise the rate of income support and abolish all forms of compulsory income management. Instead of continuing to spend massive amounts of taxpayers' money on this compulsory income management scheme, you can substantially invest in services that genuinely support people who are living in poverty and who potentially face addiction issues—things like affordable housing, making health care more accessible and properly investing in financial counselling services and First Nations controlled community organisations. The evidence is clear. Compulsory income management doesn't work. Rather, it is a punitive and harmful regime that disproportionately targets First Nations peoples. I want to end by saying that there is a glimmer of a hope for change. Today in the report that I have just tabled into the extent and impact of poverty in Australia, Labor senators have agreed with a recommendation to the government to continue to reform income management with a view to replacing compulsory income with voluntary models that empower families and communities. So I call on Labor to urgently make that commitment a reality and to end compulsory income management as soon as possible. But, until Labor does that—and sadly I think it's probably going to take some time—and until Labor comes to parliament with a bill that introduces genuine, voluntary income management, the Greens will not stop fighting until all compulsory income management is abolished. We will continue to disallow every instrument that locks in compulsory income management that comes before us in this place. We won't allow the government to continue to force people on these punitive and damaging programs. We will continue to disrupt any attempt by Labor to push through unsuitable, harmful and inadequate instruments that continue compulsory income management. We will keep fighting until our social security actually supports the people who need it most. 18:21 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I want to thank Senator Rice for moving to disallow these instruments and bringing to light another attempt by the government to control us. These instruments allow child protection workers to decide that our families need to go onto income management. Shame! It shows how the so-called child protection services do not protect us. It is the opposite: it takes our children away. We're in a child removal crisis, and this is what Labor does. Child protection is another way that the government polices our communities. They are removing our children at higher rates than ever, with over 25,000 First People children currently removed from their families, making up well over 40 per cent of removed children, when we are a small minority of the population. Guess what, Labor? That is genocide. And now the same people removing our kids would have the power to put us on the government's racist income management scheme: the smart card. It is clear that by 'protection', this government actually means 'control'. The very idea that First Peoples need protecting from ourselves is a racist, colonial narrative. We have seen this type of protectionist, racist, colonial interference in our lives before. We live it every day. Our people were once subject to near total control of movement—control over who they could marry, who they could have kids with and what jobs they could do. Our wages were stolen, our savings were taken and our property was seized. You go to jail for that now, don't you? Let's lock up every politician that has subjected us to this genocidal regime. How would you like that? Let's put you on a BasicsCard. The police services of this country stole our children from their families and put them to work. Today, police and child protection services continue to steal our children. Now, apparently, you'll be trying to put us back on rations through the smart card. The smart card is rations. We're not rounded up on the missions no more, Labor. We know that something like eight out of 10 people on the BasicsCard and more than half the people on the CDC are First People. No surprise, there. The government knows this, and it's no accident. There was a recent review into the new enhanced income management which introduced the smart card. All the witnesses except one pointed to how harmful the scheme is and called for abolition of compulsory income management. Yet this will be just another report that the government will file away under 'Look away; not our problem' and give themselves a pat on the back for having such good intentions in the way they control black people. If the media wants a story about broken election promises, look no further. Labor went to the election promising to get rid of the cashless debit card. Last year I gave a speech recounting all the times they promised this. It is so clear that the government does not intend to abolish compulsory income management. The Australian Human Rights Commission has warned time and time again that the cashless debit card bill is not in line with this country's international human rights obligations. How do you sleep at night, Labor? Honestly: how do you sleep at night? If the minister cared for what our people needed, they would be bending over backwards to fully fund and resource Aboriginal community controlled organisations to provide services to our people on our terms. Instead, they opt for control, coercion, native police, and power over us yet again. The systems aren't broken; they are working exactly as designed. This is a continuation of the genocide on our people, and every Labor politician in this place is complicit—some in their own genocide, as we know. If there is no intent on genocide, the government must stop its forcible control of First Nations people once again and listen to our sovereign voices. So I call on the government today to make good on their promise and call for all forms of compulsory, racist income control of our people to be abolished immediately. Thank you. 18:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government opposes Senator Rice's motion to disallow these instruments under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. These instruments are required to ensure that existing income management participants have uninterrupted access to income management until such time as they either choose to move to enhanced income management or otherwise lose legibility for the program. The legislative instruments specify the locations in which the disengaged youth, long-term welfare payment recipient, child protection and supporting-people-at-risk measures of income management operate. The government is committed to working with communities on what comes next, with a focus on jobs, economic opportunity and better services. We remain mindful that some First Nations peoples and other stakeholders have called for a measured approach to reforming income management. Decisions impacting First Nations people must be made in partnership with them. To demonstrate our government's commitment to ongoing and meaningful consultation on the future of income management, these instruments have been made for an appropriate amount of time that will enable community based consultation on the future of income management to be completed and decisions made on future reforms. We have heard that any further reform needs to reflect the complex needs of participants and to mitigate any disruption to the ability to manage their money. We're also committed to consulting with communities and to working in partnership with First Nations people to consider what the future of the program looks like. The three income management legislative instruments will operate through to 1 July 2026. This will allow time for genuine consultation to occur and for further decisions to be made by government on longer-term reform to income management. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 The question is that the motion put by Senator Rice be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [18:34]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Grogan)

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. 24 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 99 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 99

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

Second Reading 99 18:37 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia We have buckets of research about the benefits of paid parental leave. Very robust, solid longitudinal studies tell us about the broad range of benefits of best practice parental leave schemes both in Australia and around the world. There are huge benefits for babies, very significant benefits for the life chances of children and enormous benefits to mothers. It assists breastfeeding. It's also very clear that the benefits are there for labour supply and the economy. Australia is a very rich country. We choose to spend public money on submarines—$368 billion. We choose to spend billions on subsidies for fossil fuel companies and tax cuts for the rich. We can choose to support parents, particularly mothers, who often end up taking the biggest financial hit when they raise a child. We can afford to have Rolls-Royce standard paid parental leave in this country. The Greens are proposing a government paid parental leave scheme of 52 weeks at minimum wage, with employers to top the scheme up to match full-wage replacement. To fall short of this puts new parents in a financially difficult position. It lets down our working families, it ignores the distribution of inadequate and unfairly distributed parental care on families, and it disadvantages women. It's a big engine in the war against inequality, and we need to deal with it. I chaired the Select Committee on Work and Care, where we heard definitive evidence from stakeholders about the consequences of our inadequate Paid Parental Leave scheme. Our existing scheme promotes and entrenches prevailing stereotypic gender roles: mothers as primary carers; fathers as primary earners. Women account for 88 per cent of all primary carers taking leave, and men only account for 12 per cent. Less than 50 per cent of the largest employers in Australia offer any paid parental leave. We are really dragging the chain here. There's a huge gender division in the distribution of paid and unpaid work in our economy, which necessarily undermines equality between men and women. Caring patterns are established in the first year of a child's life, and they persist over that life, so the underutilisation of parental leave amongst fathers bakes in the gender division of labour in households for years to come. The skewed distribution of care work leads to reduced women's workforce participation, and time out of the workforce hinders women's career progression, contributing to the dominance of men in more senior roles and the concentration of women in low-paid, part-time and insecure work, and we've seen very extensive evidence of that gender pay gap this week in our public discussion about the gender pay gap. It's so wide in so many of Australia's workplaces and is partly explained by inadequate supports for working carers, most of whom are women. Labour market segregation and the gendered distribution of care work in Australian households are key factors driving that gender pay gap and the superannuation gap in Australia. The government were patting themselves on the back last week for a gender pay gap of 12 per cent—the lowest on record—occurring on their watch, relating specifically to full-time ordinary earnings, but we should not be celebrating. Let's not forget that the gender pay gap is calculated using just those full-time wages and that part-time wages data is way wider—still 19 per cent. That means that, on average, women are earning over $18,000 less per year than men. Over a whole working life, this is equivalent to women earning $1 million less. The inadequacies of Australia's current paid parental leave system are part of what's behind the problem of this inequity, which we must deal with. The release of WGEA's gender wage gap data that we saw this week revealed the economywide scale and significance of this problem. Transparency has shed an important light on economic and seniority disparities for women in some of the biggest companies in Australia. The construction, professional services and banking industries recorded some of the worst gender pay gaps, and some in the consulting industry—an industry I'm currently looking at through various inquiries—unsurprisingly have much higher gaps than the average. McKinsey has a median gap between men and women for total pay of 38 per cent, and Boston Consulting Group's gap is 35 per cent, while Bain's is 31 per cent. This is shameful. It's shameful that these companies, which do business with our public sector and receive contracts, are the places where these gaps are unacceptably wide. After decades of talk about what needs to be done, the action is insufficient. The big four are not amongst the worst offenders, but that is explained in part by the fact that we don't have a total workforce assessment of the gender pay gap in the big four. Partners are not employees. They're very highly paid and they're disproportionately men, and that will shift those figures when we get an overall picture, which we must have. We need the full picture of what's going on in those big four. They've got thousands of partners earning very big dollars, and we need to have a much more forensic examination. The Greens are calling for business structures to be required to report their data on pay gaps between men and women to illuminate that gap and also to look at the impact of paid parental leave changes. Women deserve fairer paid parental leave. It improves their economic security. It reduces the gender pay gap and increases the likelihood that mothers will return to work after having children. The community sector has long been calling for an expansion of paid parental leave. Delivering a fairer scheme is a no-brainer that benefits everyone: parents, children and the economy. We know this is possible because lots of countries are already doing it. Countries, including Finland, Germany, Norway, Iceland and many countries around the world, have more equitable and effective paid parental leave schemes. Norway has 49 weeks of parental leave—15 weeks exclusively for one carer and another 15 weeks exclusively for the other, with the remaining 16 weeks to be shared. The experience in other countries puts beyond doubt that more equitable parenting leave, coupled with free child care of high quality, improves women's workforce participation and helps shape the long-term sharing of care work, with really important positive outcomes for our kids. Another important lesson from international paid parental leave schemes is the importance of reserving a component on a 'use it or lose it' basis for the second carer. We've seen time and again in Scandinavian countries how this provision causes a huge jump in the number of those second parents taking leave and, then, in consequence, over the life of those young kids, a fairer sharing of the care in those households. This is sustained for more than a decade after that experience of being the parent, usually the father, at home, really seeing what it's like to care and building close, strong relationships with those little kids. The reintroduction of a 'use it or lose it' provision in this bill to encourage shared parenting is a very welcome change. We heard powerful evidence in the Select Committee on Work and Care, which I chaired, about the importance of doing things better. Where there is a more equitable take-up of parental leave, women have better paid employment outcomes and children receive better support in the earliest stages of life. It's win-win-win. This is not to mention the improved maternal health and the quality of parental relationships during a time when these things are often strained. Research from Parenthood found that, if we legislated 12 months of paid parental leave at full pay, with a significant portion of it shared, this would lead to a GDP increase of $116 billion, or 2.9 per cent, by 2025, largely due to the higher rates of female participation and productivity that would result from spending less time out of the labour market. It would also result in an increase in breastfeeding rates of 4.6 per cent and associated long-term increases in labour productivity. Some will point to the cost of delivering adequate paid parental leave, but they ignore that return on investment, and underinvestment in care means labour shortages, gender inequality and more stress for workers, especially for women. We know that if Australian men had babies we would have Rolls-Royce paid parental leave, and the budget would be no hindrance. Last year, even the government's own Women's Economic Equality Taskforce recommended expanding paid parental leave to 52 weeks and paying superannuation on paid parental leave—and isn't that overdue? That must be in the next budget. They also recommended eventually paying paid parental leave at a replacement wage. The ACTU supports finding that pathway to 52 weeks, and so many community organisations also support it. The Greens will continue to call for reforms that expand support for new parents and address the gender inequity of current childcare patterns in Australia. We are fighting for government paid parental leave to be expanded to 52 weeks, giving parents that full year together between them to nurture and provide for the needs of their kids. We're calling on businesses to top up the government's scheme to bring the rate of pay up to the full replacement rate and for it to be mandatory for superannuation to be paid during parental leave. This will bring us up to the global standard. It'll deliver justice for parents, better outcomes for our economy and a better start for our kids. We're a wealthy country. We can afford to look after mothers, parents and our kids well, and we can afford to get the administrative mechanisms of paid parental leave right. Forty-one per cent of Australian workers work in small business. It is important that they not be encumbered with new administrative responsibilities at the very moment when their families are under the greatest stress and pressure. There is so much administration you have to deal with when you have a baby. There is so much change in your life. We need small businesses to be part of this system for the continuity of employment and the payment of wages to those workers so that they can be confident of a connection to their employer and their boss and so that their boss can be confident of a connection to them. We need to increase the length of leave, we need to make sure it's administratively sensible, and we need to have it work for the kids of the future. 18:48 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales This is not my first speech. I rise to speak in favour of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill. What we've seen discussed in recent days with the release of the gender pay gap data is that a large contribution to the cause of the gender pay gap is the different amounts of time that women and men tend to spend out of the workforce. The workforce participation rates of women and men tend to match one another until people reach a child-bearing age, at which point women tend to fall behind, and that workforce participation rate gap remains. In Australia, that workforce participation rate gap is about eight percentage points. It's about 62 per cent for women and 70 per cent for men, which is high by OECD standards. One of the most meaningful economic reforms we can pursue is to improve the female workforce participation rate so it matches that of men in the economy. Closing this gap would address one of the three Ps that go to the heart of economic growth: participation, productivity and population. At the moment, most of our economic growth is dependent largely on population growth. We don't have a productivity agenda, but we could have a workforce participation agenda. What this bill does is make the Paid Parental Leave scheme more generous, increasing it to 26 weeks, and it encourages both parents to take leave. It gives families the flexibility to make their own decisions about how they should share this leave. Around 171,000 parents or claimants accessed this scheme in the last financial year, 2022-23. This scheme is designed to complement—not supplant—employer-provided leave, and in Australia there are about 62 per cent of employers who offer some form of paid parental leave. Under the present scheme, 20 weeks of paid parental leave is available—this bill will increase that to 26 weeks. Under the present scheme there are two weeks reserved for each partner—this bill will increase that to four weeks reserved for each partner, meaning 18 weeks could be used by either partner. What this bill does is encourage the more equitable sharing of parenting duties. It supports parents and particularly women to re-enter the workforce after having children by retaining a connection and retaining the option to return to work, and, to the extent it encourages fathers to share in the parenting duties, will over time encourage better fathers as well. However, I do have one concern I shared with some of my colleagues in the coalition about elements of the bill—that is, largely, the administrative burden that will be imposed upon small business in particular. Under the bill as constructed, the secretary of Services Australia pays directly to the employers, and the employers then pass this on to the employees. For a large business or organisation with a human resources department and a payroll department, that probably adds little in terms of administrative burden, but for small businesses in particular—that is, businesses with fewer than 20 employees—who often would not have the systems and business processes to allow them to use or implement such a scheme up until this point, this could impose a significant administrative burden. In the committee inquiry into the bill there were a number of industry bodies and peak bodies who raised this: the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, for instance, said that having the PPL scheme administered by small businesses or employers on behalf of Services Australia 'imposes a significant administrative burden on small businesses'. The Motor Trades Association of Australia argued that smaller businesses 'should not have responsibility for administering payments on behalf of Services Australia', and a survey of their own respondents—a small-business member survey respondents—said that 86.3 per cent of respondents favoured an opt-in model where small businesses could elect to do this, and in doing so retain a connection with that particular employee, but they would prefer the default option that Services Australia pays this directly to the employee. The Restaurant and Catering Industry Association said: … the imposition on employees to administer parental leave payments places an additional regulatory burden on businesses to serve as the Commonwealth's 'financial intermediary'. This only provides additional confusion surrounding the role and level of responsibility businesses are accountable for when payments are paid late or incorrectly. Finally, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman said: For many small and family businesses, the costs associated with administering the scheme are magnified as they do not have the existing organisational capability or internal expertise to implement complex processes. The coalition will be moving an amendment in the committee of the whole process, seeking to remove the requirement on small businesses—that is, businesses with fewer than 20 employees—to be compulsory opted into the scheme. We would like to give them the opportunity to opt out if necessary and allow Services Australia to pay that directly. Overall, I do speak in support of this important social policy and to a degree and economic policy reform. It will help, over time, reduce the workforce participation rate gap, which should help, over time, reduce the gender pay gap, and which should help, over time, improve our economic performance as a nation. 18:54 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I'm pleased today to be speaking in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. It's a piece of legislation that is very important to me and to our nation. When I first entered this chamber in July 2022, I was 35-weeks pregnant. Already the mother of a six-year-old boy, I knew my decision carried a lot of weight, but I entered this place reflecting on the many women who paved a path for working mothers like me. For much of this country's history, our parliament has been unaccommodating for mothers. The Australian parliament didn't have a women's bathroom until 1974. It was in my lifetime that the Parliament House bar was replaced with a childcare centre. The Capitol Hill childcare facility is now used by elected representatives, staff and members of the press gallery. They are very welcome changes. My hope is for an Australia that destigmatises working parents and changes the way we view the work-life balance and that workplaces that are supportive of their employee's choice to raise a family will become less of a novelty. Less than a decade ago, children were banned from the chamber. In 2016, the Australian parliament changed its strangers rule to allow parliamentarians to bring our children into the workplace. In February 2022, my little Ari made history as the first Koori baby to enter the Senate chamber. He was only the fourth baby on these red carpets. This year, my good friend and fellow Victorian Senator Raff Ciccone became the first father to bring his child into the Senate chamber. In the seven years since the strangers rule was lifted, the chamber has changed so much. Many of us in this place have accepted a new status quo and one that uplifts working mothers and fathers. The reality couldn't be clearer. When we change the rules, we change our attitudes towards working parents. What we do here needs to pave the way for the rest of the country, but there is always more to be done. That's what the more support for working families bill does. This bill delivers on the second tranche of the Albanese Labor government's plan to reform the Paid Parental Leave scheme, building on the changes we announced in our 2022-23 October budget. Every Labor person in this place, in this government, believes in supporting our working families, encouraging greater gender equality and supporting greater workforce participation. I've spoken a lot about my workplace, but not the experience so far of working parents across Australia. It is impossible to look at this reform without having a gendered lens. Women, by and large, are still the primary care givers in this country, regardless of whether they are an MP or Senator, work in an office building or on a construction site. Entrenched gender stereotypes frequently frame men as the household breadwinners while women are the stay-at-home mothers. In reality, the needs of every family are different, but an issue arises when the scales are tipped against working mothers. Too often, new mothers return to full-time work only to find themselves denied career progression. Mothers who may want to work full time might be forced to cut down their days in the office because they can't access adequate child care. Raising the next generation of leaders is important work, but, shamefully, women are often penalised for it when they choose to spend time at home before returning to work. The ripple effects from this cannot be denied. Less pay, means working mothers face greater vulnerability and economic hardship, have fewer assets and less super in the bank when it comes to retirement. Big business, union secretaries, experts and economists know that the most effective way to boost our national productivity is by promoting the economic empowerment of women. I'm proud to be part of a government, the Albanese Labor government, that puts women at the centre of everything that we do, and nothing is more clear than having a majority of women in caucus for the first time in any government's history. The bill affirms Labor's commitment to gender equality in every Australian workplace by providing more choices and more support for working families. These amendments expand paid parental leave from 20 to 26 weeks, extend the period reserved for each parent from two weeks to four weeks and double the period when parents can take leave at the same time from two to four weeks. These changes are set to benefit approximately 180,000 families in Australia. It will provide much-needed support to mums after childbirth and empower dads to take on more care-giving responsibilities, because gender should not affect your access to parental leave payments—just like you shouldn't have to worry about spending time with your baby or about money to pay the bills. When the Gillard Labor government established the Paid Parental Leave scheme in 2011, we knew that investing in paid parental leave would benefit our entire economy and bring Australia one step closer to achieving gender parity. We knew it then and we know it now. Those opposite cannot be trusted to support Australian women. Under their watch, Australia's global ranking in the World Economic Forum's global gender gap index plummeted to 43rd. Since Labor came to government, we have cleaned up the coalition's mess and unapologetically supported women across every workplace in Australia. We've supported working women and reformed traditionally feminised industries, like our care economy. This has included supporting aged-care workers with a historic 15 per cent pay rise, putting multi-employer bargaining on the table for industries like early childhood educators, and from 1 July this year every woman taxpayer will receive a tax cut under Labor. Ninety per cent of women in Australia will be better off under Labor's tax cuts. The actions of the Albanese Labor government are already yielding life-changing results. In the last year, Australia has climbed 17 places on the global gender gap index, the largest increase since the index began in 2006. We had a record-high participation rate of women, at nearly 63 per cent, in May last year. And just last week, the ABS gender pay gap reached its lowest level in our country's history at 12 per cent. Throughout its history, Labor has been a progressive force for women. It is no surprise to me, looking at this side of the chamber and looking over there, that the Albanese Labor government, a majority women government, has continued to push for the economic empowerment of working women. As I have already mentioned, when we change the rules to accommodate working parents, we change societal and cultural attitudes towards working parents. Importantly, this modernises our Paid Parental Leave scheme and delivers flexibility for modern Australian families. At the Jobs and Skills Summit and in the employment white paper, the Albanese Labor government heard loud and clear that support for families to balance care is critical to ensuring women's long-term economic equality. What excites me most about this bill is the opportunity that it will create for Australian women and working families. Not only will it create opportunities for families who will benefit under a bigger and better Paid Parental Leave scheme, but this investment will also promote parenting as an equal partnership while boosting the economy. Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency reported that 62 per cent of employers offered employer funded paid parental leave in 2021-22. This is an increase from 2013-14, where only 48 per cent of employees saw paid parental leave as a workplace investment. This is a very positive trend, and I hope to see this trend continue to grow as it shows a necessary shift in cultural attitudes. Across Australia, businesses are beginning to recognise they too have a role in providing paid parental leave alongside the Commonwealth. They know that investing in paid parental leave delivers better returns for employers, parents and the economy. This is about making sure that every Australian family has more choice and better support, no matter their needs or how they choose to share care and responsibility. There will come a day that every person in this place must put trust in the next generation to lead our nation and that the future of this country will rest with them. We cannot control what they will do but, right here and right now, we can make a difference to the quality of life our children have access to. We know that quality time with a loving parent can do wonders for a child's early cognitive learning and development in their formative years. This bill will deliver a paid parental leave scheme that is flexible and fair and will improve social and economic outcomes for both parents and their children. I commended the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill to the Senate. 19:04 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales As we give consideration to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023, we should look not only at the important changes that have taken place to make it possible for women and families to get fair economic outcomes but also at the context of paid parental leave as an overarching strategy by the government to make sure that we lift and give to women opportunities that haven't been experienced before—and, I'd also say, lift opportunities that haven't been experienced by men as well. I know, as a father, that my wife did most of the caring—that was the arrangement we made—but I think of the opportunities that I had at various points to care for my children in their early years. It gave me a great opportunity to bond with my children that my father and my grandfather didn't contemplate. This is an opportunity to build a more cohesive family unit, and that's one of the things that particularly makes this bill attractive to me. As well as adding the important aspect of equity and fairness, and lifting up opportunities for women, this proposal also gives the family unit a benefit. When we're looking at issues particularly with the undue pressure that occurs quite often on women, some of the strides ahead we've made include the gender pay gap—which has fallen by 2.1 per cent since this government came to office—and making sure that pay secrecy clauses, that really impact on women, are overridden. Multi-employer bargaining and low-paid bargaining is another area that the opposition say they don't support, and is no doubt one of those areas that they plan on taking out of the industrial relations system. It gives particularly low-paid, largely feminised industries not only a more fair and reasonable bargaining position but more fair and reasonable market opportunities for employees who want to do the right thing. Doing the right thing across the market is the right thing not just for employees but for those companies that want to make sure they have a sustainable workforce. Particularly in feminised industries that have been highly undervalued, that opportunity means we lift many, many women in those feminised industries along with other cohorts of people working in that sector. Gig work is another example where people are disempowered, going to the circumstances many women find in those particular roles in gig work. Much of our economic agenda is targeted to delivering better wages, better conditions and better opportunities for women, and it's good to see that this work is making a meaningful change. Through the Jobs and Skills Summit and the employment white paper, the government heard loud and clear that supporting families to balance care is critical to ensuring women long-term economic equality. That is why we've introduced this bill to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act—to provide a more generous PPL scheme. The bill will support maternal health and wellbeing, encourage both parents to take leave and give families flexibility to choose how they share and care. The PPL scheme provides payments to eligible working parents and carers, and changes contained in this bill will benefit over 180,000 families each year; that's a lot of Australians that are going to be in a better position as a result of this bill. The bill will expand the paid parental leave scheme in stages—to 22 weeks from 1 July 2024, to 24 weeks from 1 July 2025 and to the full 26 weeks from 1 July 2026. Reforms will mean that there is an easier claiming process that will allow either parent to be the primary claimant, that parents will be able to take weeks of leave at the same time so they can spend time at home together with their children, and that there will be better access to paid leave for parents whose partners do not meet residency requirements. Under the current measures, if a family wants to share parental leave the birth mother must claim PPL first and then transfer it to the other parent. This is administratively complex and burdensome for parents and can be complex for businesses as well. This degree of simplicity being brought to the system also goes to a point that those who are suggesting amendments for direct payments for small business should be mindful of—that the burdensome administrative complexity has been lessened as part of the frame of this bill. Dads and partners who meet residency requirements would also be supported to receive PPL in circumstances where the birth mother does not meet the waiting period requirement for newly arrived residents. A total of 1,500 families are set to benefit from this change. It's funny: we talk about figures in this place, but 1,500: is it a great amount, or is it not? I can say to anyone here that if you're one of those 1,500 then it makes a difference to the opportunities it gives to you and your family and to the cherished child. This means that there are 1,500 more families that have been helped by a decision we make here. These are some life-changing, like-developing changes. The bill also will increase the number of paid parental leave days that a family is able to take together, at the same time, to four weeks. This will increase flexibility for families and support parents to take time off together after a birth. These changes reflect the additional advice on PPL sought by government from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and represent the largest investment in PPL since the scheme was introduced in 2011. In preparing its advice, the task force was informed by broad consultation across member networks, briefings from relevant government departments and the commissioning of research from Professor Marian Baird and Associate Professor Elizabeth Hill. At the committee inquiry into the bill we heard from organisations who were supportive of its objective to empower women and strengthen community wellbeing. The committee received 24 submissions and held a public hearing in Canberra on 23 January 2024. Women's Legal Services Australia, or WLSA, said the bill 'will make the scheme more flexible, accessible and supportive of gender equality, women's participation in the workforce and shared parenting'. The Northern Territory Working Women's Centre said the bill is a 'greatly welcome development in providing support and financial security for families'. The Parenthood, an advocacy organisation representing parents and carers, expressed support for this bill's overdue and welcome reform to the PPL scheme and described it as a 'commendable step towards supporting Australian families'. Ms Helen Dalley-Fisher, Convenor of the Equal Rights Alliance, testified at the hearing that 'the bill will promote women's economic security and women's participation in the workforce' and 'it will also promote redistribution of care work between the genders, which is critical for this bill'. But all this support for the bill from stakeholders hasn't stopped some of the negativity from those opposite. We've heard from coalition senators this week that changes to the scheme create disputation in workplaces, and this is distinguished because the PPL scheme does not alter existing employer-provided paid or unpaid leave entitlements. This is a critical point. When looking at the exemption of small business in considerations for that amendment, evidence was given by a number of parental gurus about the importance of making sure that for all business, in particular small business, that has a competent employed person who goes on to parental leave, the contact remains between that worker and the employer. I'm looking forward to further debate about the exemption for small business, because it's an exemption that breaks that connection that's so important in making sure that not only is the person who's on leave engaged but also there's encouragement, desire and a process of constant engagement by the employer. That includes in small business, where it's so essential for those skills to be brought back into the workplace and be celebrated when those workers return to the work environment. The government-funded parental leave pay is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer-provided leave. That connection is already here, and disconnecting that connection is a dangerous thing, which was pointed out by many of those who gave evidence during the inquiry and a number of groups of small business workforces represented by women's organisations. According to the Department of Social Services, 61.8 per cent of employers in Australia offer access to parental leave in addition to the government scheme. With this bill, the Albanese government is getting on with the job. The bill goes hand in hand with the government's other measures to improve women's economic security and workforce participation and support gender equality. The first tranche of changes was enacted under the Paid Parental Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Act 2023. Key changes included expanding the paid parental leave maximum entitlement from 18 weeks to 20 weeks by absorbing dad and partner pay; replacing the requirement for the birth parent to claim parental leave pay first; removing the requirement for 12 weeks of parental leave pay to be taken in one consecutive block; introducing a reserved 'use it or lose it' period of two weeks of parental leave pay for each parent; and expanding scheme eligibility by introducing a family income limit of $350,000, which can apply if the person does not meet the individual income limit. In her second reading speech, Minister Rishworth said: Not only will our changes help families better balance work and care; they will also support participation and productivity over the longer term, providing a dividend for the Australian economy. When men and women are encouraged to share their caring responsibilities in their child's early years, it means that women can come back into the workforce faster—and so can men, ultimately. The bill will have a noticeable impact on the gender pay gap and the gap in superannuation savings of women later in life. Research from the Australia Institute's Centre for Future of Work highlights that women have significantly less money saved for their retirement. Based on median income data, Australian women earn $136,000 less in super over their working lives than their male counterparts do. Of course, work still needs to be done on making sure that we get a fairer and more equitable system for women in the workforce. Investing in paid parental leave is vital to the economy, as it helps maintain the participation of women within the workforce. More women getting back into the workforce will contribute to the filling of skills shortages across the economy in large, medium and small businesses—and I emphasise the importance of keeping the connection to small businesses, along with medium and large. We know that if we don't do that it will be a handbrake on productivity. The submission of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to the committee inquiry into the bill's provisions said: With such a tight labour market prevailing in the current economic conditions, Australian businesses and communities cannot afford to have more employees leave the workforce. We in the Albanese Labor government are delivering on our commitment to delivering more support for working families, improving outcomes for children, and advancing gender equality. 19:18 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023, a bill that meets the needs of Australian families by giving working people more access to support when its needed and giving more time to parents after the birth of their child. This bill is about more choices, more options and more flexibility when it comes to paid parental leave and the care of young children. This is about parents having greater agency to share caring responsibilities. It's a modern bill for a modern Australia. From 1 July, two additional weeks of leave will be added each year until 2026. By 2026, new parents will have a total of 26 weeks leave to use—six months of paid parental leave. That is an absolute game changer. One parent can access 22 of those weeks, a month more than under the current scheme. The other parent can access four weeks, double the amount they have now. Critically, parents will be able to take four weeks together instead of just two. For families this time is invaluable. It is more time to recover after childbirth and more time to spend with their child as a family together. It is the ability to give care together for longer. We know this will improve wellbeing outcomes for families across Australia. We also know that investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy and drives gender equality. We are a majority-female government, the first in history, and gender equality is at the heart of everything we do. We want to encourage and facilitate shared caregiving to provide more choice and more support for women. Expanding paid parental leave means women can better balance their caregiving and their work responsibilities, but it also means that fathers and partners are supported to take a greater caring role too. We want agency for families to figure out how to do that best. They should have the flexibility to structure their care arrangements. Men and partners should be valued as caregivers too, and parenting can be treated as an equal partnership. When these structures are in place, women are better supported to engage with the workforce, and equality is advanced. Women's economic equality is top of mind for our government every day. In addition to this bill, we've driven a strong agenda for women. We delivered a historic and life-changing 15 per cent pay rise for Australia's aged-care workforce. We supported a life-changing pay rise for minimum wage workers two years in a row. We've seen a historic increase in the workforce participation rates of women. Women are seeing how working, caring and living can work for them. We've also seen the gender pay gap drop to 12 per cent, the lowest level on record. And, come 1 July, 100 per cent of working women will receive a tax cut, and 90 per cent of working women will receive a bigger tax cut under our plan. There is more work to do, but I'm so proud of what we've delivered so far, and this bill delivers more. Paid parental leave is a strong Labor legacy that we first established back in 2011 under the leadership of the incredible minister Jenny Macklin, and the Albanese government have worked hard to introduce reforms to now modernise the scheme, to make it flexible and equitable and just to make it more helpful to the families that it aims to support. Just like Medicare, it took a Labor government to establish paid parental leave, and now it takes a Labor government to protect it and to expand it. And that's exactly what we're doing with this bill. I'm proud to support the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill today. 19:23 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill is important legislation that I know so many of my colleagues have been very happy to talk about here today. It's something that I know I myself would have benefited from in my time of being a father. I reflect on what Senator Sheldon talked about as well, in terms of it being a different era from when this was something that had first been brought in. Obviously the work that the government has been doing to expand the Paid Parental Leave scheme is something that has been a work in progress, but it's also something that I think is recognised now across society as being such an important part of establishing a family. I think that the businesses, the unions and the economists all agree that it's also one of the best ways that we can boost productivity and participation and provide more support to families. If you look at the challenges that we're confronting across the nation, one in particular at the moment is workforce. I spend a lot of my time on duty in regional and rural Australia, and there's not a place you go that isn't having impacts from labour shortages. We know there's a well-publicised teacher shortage. We know there's a constant challenge that has been identified in terms of our health professionals and care professionals. If we can increase the Paid Parental Leave scheme and make it more attractive, we also know that's going to be important for the workforce, and important for productivity as well, so I think it is important from that point of view. This is the largest investment in the paid parental leave scheme since Labor established it in 2011. It will benefit over 180,000 families each year; that is something this government is really proud of. We understand that it is absolutely vital that this support goes to families, but we also know that, in those early stages of a young person's life, having their family and parents involved in their care is only going to benefit those children as well. I think that is well recognised, but it's important that government, in the policies it puts in place, creates those opportunities to ensures parents have that opportunity across the country. The bill expands the paid parental leave scheme by increasing the length of payments from 20 to 26 weeks. That's going to make a significant difference to many families across the country. As I mentioned before, 180,000 families will benefit from that each year. When you think about that extra six-week support that will be provided across those 180,000 people, that's going to make a significant difference for them. It is something that will be welcomed by those families, and I encourage people in this chamber to support this important legislation. We also know that, in the work of the government, in terms of what we're doing in confronting that labour shortage across the country, we need to look at this in the context of the other work we're doing across government—for instance, the work that was released on Sunday by Minister Clare and the work of Professor O'Kane in the Universities Accord process; I'm going to focus on regional areas in this regard. The regional university study hubs are going to be significant. The evidence I've seen, when I have been out in communities that have the existing study hubs in place, is that often in these communities it is the partner of someone who has moved to those towns for work who is raising children and has the opportunity to go and study. When you think about, in those regional towns, the support that can be provided for the next nurse or the next teacher, it's much better if we're already training those people in those local communities. In relation to the evidence, I think about 70 per cent of people who study in a regional town are much more likely to stay there and work there. When you think about those challenges we're facing in health and education, if we are to provide that incentive for those people to study locally they will much more likely enter the workforce in those local communities. That aim we've been building in education, and what we've been focused on through the Universities Accord process, has been to create those opportunities. I've been to a number of study hubs now where they have a lot of returning mothers who are trying to get back into the workforce after raising children. You can only imagine the impact the increase to the paid parental leave scheme will have for those people. When you look at this in the context of everything the government is trying to achieve, it will add to opportunity for people across the country. Putting my Assistant Minister for Regional Development hat on, it will be particularly welcomed across regional Australia. It is important this legislation is passed, and it is important we work through this in the chamber, hopefully over the next 24 hours, to get it done. I also think the evidence we've seen in regard to the paid parental leave scheme and its importance for families is that it is providing that real boost for parents to spend time with their babies once they are born. So many of us who have been fortunate to have children have really valued that time. With the current cost-of-living challenges, many people would be feeling the pressure to get back to work and continue to earn money, and I think this is a recognition of that challenge that many people are facing. I think it's something that would be welcomed by so many people in the community. When you look at what the government is trying to achieve, whether it be on the cost of living, or ensuring that we've got a better system in place for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, the evidence is the government are listening to people and we are doing our best to implement it— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 107 ADJOURNMENT PFLAG+ Perth, Heller, Mrs Elfie 107 19:30 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia As senators, one of the great privileges we get is to bring to the Senate chamber the great work that many Australians do. In December 2019 I took the opportunity to honour one particular group—a Western Australian group, but the group is not unique to Western Australia. I honoured the important work that PFLAG—which originally stood for Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays—do in helping our communities understand that when parents have gay children, they have nothing to fear. In 2019 I used that occasion to acknowledge the 30th anniversary of PFLAG in Perth. I used that speech to acknowledge the important work of the founders of PFLAG in Western Australia—people like June Smythe, Helen Horntvedt, John Pugh and Elfie Heller. I also used the opportunity to acknowledge the important work that the leadership at the time was doing for PFLAG—people like John Wilson, my good friend Liz Prendergast, and Denise Taylor, who is still very much involved. While our country has travelled a great distance, a tremendous distance in improving the level of understanding about LGBTI issues, making parents and brothers and sisters of LGBTI people learn that they have nothing to fear, that the aspirations for young people in our country can be the same whether they are LGBTI or not LGBTI. Of course, there's always more to do, and, unfortunately, on occasions we see pockets of discrimination in our community. That's why the work of PFLAG and other organisations like them is so very important. I would like to see the day when an organisation like PFLAG is no longer necessary. I don't see that day yet, but I still live in hope. So it is with tremendous sadness that I draw to the attention of the Senate tonight, the sad passing of 6 February of one of those founders of PFLAG in Western Australia, someone who is very well known to me. She of course was Mrs Elfie Heller. I knew Elfie because she was the mother of one of my closest friends in high school—who is one of my closest friends, Martin. Martin's brother, Mark, is gay. Elfie, who came to our country as a migrant and worked hard in Perth's northern suburbs, knew that she wasn't going to stand by and allow discrimination to hurt her family or to hurt her elder son's aspirations. I would like to read into the Senate Hansard what PFLAG had to say about Elfie Heller's contribution. They said: It is with understandable sadness but fond memories and extreme gratitude that PFLAG+ Perth share the passing of Mrs Elfie Heller. Elfie was a lifetime PFLAG+ Perth member and a true character. Our PFLAG+ elders were on the frontlines of the LGBTQIA+ rights movement and protested on the steps of Parliament House to decriminalise homosexuality. They marched with their loved ones in Perth's first Pride and they sat beside HIV+ positive folk in clinic waiting room. They held the hands of folks abandoned by their genetic families, who were dying of AIDS in hospital wards. They faced death threats and were shunned by their communities, faiths and extended families. But, like the current members of PFLAG+ Perth, they remained unwavering in their support of not only their own children but LGBTQIA+ folk in general. It was and remains a steep learning curve, but love and commitment go a long way! So, tonight, I honour all the members of PFLAG across our country. I especially acknowledge those who have been involved in PFLAG in Perth over 30-plus years. And, of course, I acknowledge, with the deepest sadness but with the greatest thanks and gratitude, Elfie Heller. Gender and Sexual Orientation, Australian Human Rights Commission 108 19:35 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania The extremist idea that males should be able to identify into what were previously single-sex women's sports or spaces has never been able to stand up on its own merits. The idea that a male sex offender should be able to identify into a women's prison, or a male athlete do so into a women's sport, is so obviously absurd that the only way it has gained traction is by demonising and punishing people for pointing out that absurdity. Freedom of speech and expression are cornerstones of a democratic society. They are fundamental to our ability to argue for good ideas and to challenge dangerous ideas. Yet, in order to implement policies which Australians have never voted for, governments and bureaucrats have deliberately stifled the free expression of those advocating for single-sex sports and services for women. We've seen it in state based antidiscrimination commissions, under which I, and many others, have been subject to spurious attempts to stop us pointing out that males shouldn't be in women's sports or spaces. We've seen it in the Federal Court, where the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has argued that sex isn't a biological concept—an argument which conflicts not only with reality but also with the sex based rights of every Australian woman. Last week, the taxpayer funded Australian Human Rights Commission launched an extraordinary new phase in its activism, opening a consultation on what it calls 'trans and gender diverse human rights', but banning 12 million Australian women and girls from participating. Gender ideology is a contested concept which denies the reality of sex, attempts to force women and girls to give up single-sex spaces, sports and facilities, and labels us as bigots if we don't comply. The AHRC knows full well that women in this country and around the world advocating for sex based rights have been subjected to torrents of vile abuse and threats from activists. Yet, under this consultation they're running, some of those abusive activists will be treated as experts, while the women they try to intimidate are blocked from participating. Rather than adopting a neutral approach to consultation on this issue, the AHRC has designed a consultation which prevents Australian women from making a submission, while giving an unchallenged platform to what they call 'subject matter experts'—the ones whose expertise leads them to conclude that it is kind and inclusive to put a male rapist into a women's prison. What are the 'trans and gender diverse human rights' that the AHRC refers to? Well, they won't even say. They can't explain why it is a human right for a male to enter a women's space or sport or service. Not only do they seem to think women shouldn't get a say in whether we consent to this; now they're suggesting we aren't even qualified to comment. Once again, the elite one per cent is saying that if you're a CEO or the head of an activist group then your view is noteworthy, but if you're an average Australian woman then your view is worth nothing. If you're a woman in Australia who believes that a convicted male sex offender shouldn't be able to identify into a women's prison, or if you're one of the women in prison who would be put at risk, the AHRC thinks you're not qualified to give your opinion. But if you're an activist who has campaigned for that male sex offender to be able to choose to be placed into a women's prison—well, the AHRC will consider you an expert. If you're a mother who wants your daughter to be able to participate in single-sex sport so she can compete fairly and safely, the AHRC doesn't want to hear from you. But if you're a male who campaigns for males to be allowed to identify into women sport, the AHRC wants to hear your views on how women who disagree with you have been radicalised. When they say, 'We are unable to accept submissions from nonspecialists in this area,' as the AHRC does, the 'nonspecialists' they are referring to are the 12 million Australian women who have to live with the erasure of women's sex based rights and who are smeared as bigots if we object. Once again, under the Albanese government, any views or facts which challenge their narrative are labelled 'misinformation' or 'disinformation'. Any challenge to gender ideology is childishly labelled as 'vilification' or 'extremism'. The AHRC should reflect on the reality that you cannot get a more extremist position than wanting women and girls named, shamed and punished simply for advocating for their own sex based rights. Yet this is exactly the type of witch-hunt the AHRC is setting up, while blocking millions of Australian women from being able to have our say. Senate adjourned at 19:39