DOCUMENTS

2024-02-29 2 1 0 Senate 0 0

Thursday, 29 February 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 679 DOCUMENTS Tabling 679 COMMITTEES 679 COMMITTEES Meeting 679 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 679 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 679 09:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That general business order of the day no. 67 (Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024) be considered at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. BILLS 679 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 679

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024

Second Reading 679 09:03 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 enables the manufacturing division of the CFMEU, which includes the textile, clothing and footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers, to hold a secret ballot to demerge from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, or, as we all know it, the CFMEU. Just two weeks ago, this bill was an amendment to the government's closing loopholes stage 2 legislation. Just two weeks ago, the Greens and the government voted to block the amendment and deprive these union workers of the opportunity to have a say on their future. The textile, clothing and footwear sector is currently part of the CFMEU. The textile, clothing and footwear sector is the part of the CFMEU with the greatest number of women. Many of these are from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Many have had firsthand experience of exploitation, underpayment and unsafe conditions—everything that the Greens talk about that is unacceptable. After the merger, the textile, clothing and footwear sector moved into the CFMEU's offices. One of the union secretaries told the Age newspaper about the first meeting with the CFMEU, 'It was a male-dominated space.' But the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union had merged with the CFMEU, and that also meant sharing the office space. The union rep told the paper: Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building. To say the CFMEU have had women problems in the past is an understatement. I do not have eight hours today to go through every single one of them—otherwise, nothing else would get done—but I do want to say this: the past behaviour of the CFMEU, and indeed the Builders Labourers Federation, the BLF, before that, really does give unions a bad name. That's a real shame, isn't it? It's not just a shame about the behaviour but a shame that it so often overshadows the good things the union movement has achieved for this country over the years. The first unions were formed by free workers—that is, not convicts—in Sydney and Hobart in the 1820s. The earliest unions in Tasmania were organised by craft workers in the late 1820s. Print workers, tailors, carpenters, bootmakers and bakers unions followed in the 1830s. Early trade unions were working people who came together to support each other through illness, death and unemployment. Yes, I'm going to give you a history lesson here this morning, Mr Deputy President! On 21 April 1856, stonemasons in Melbourne walked off the job in protest over their employers' refusal to accept their demands for reduced working hours. This protest led to Australia becoming the first country in the world to have a mandated eight-hour working day. But this applied to only a minority of workers, mainly those in the building trades. Women became active in the union movement in the 1870s and often formed their own unions. Most workers, including women and children, generally worked longer hours for less pay. Working people and their unions kept fighting, and in 1916 the Eight Hours Act was passed in Victoria and New South Wales. It would take another 32 years for the Commonwealth arbitration court to approve a 40-hour, five-day working week for all Australians. In the 19th century Australia was a male-dominated society. Women weren't allowed to vote and often not allowed to work. There were jobs for the blokes but not many for us women. Even if women could get a job, they weren't welcome in most workplaces. That's not to say they didn't work at home, doing all the domestic stuff—but, of course, women still don't get paid for that! Australia's first union for women, the Tailoresses Association of Melbourne, was founded in 1882, a year before Australia's first female student graduated from the University of Melbourne. In 1883, these ladies went on strike. The tailoresses strike was to protest a reduction in wages and call for an end to sweatshop hours. That these 200 brave women were going out on strike was described by commentators at the time as being 'extraordinary' and 'sensational'. Their strike resulted in changes to their working conditions and it got the attention of a royal commission, which ultimately led to a reformed Factory Act. The fight for women's working rights continued and kicked up a notch after World War II, when women took over jobs done by men, who were now fighting for their country overseas. The ladies got a shock when they opened their pay packet and found their pay was less than the blokes'. The Victorian Trades Hall established a subcommittee for equal pay in 1943, taking up the longstanding demands of female-only unions. Once the war ended, many women wanted to keep their jobs and the pay they had fought hard for. The unions had to campaign for this issue well into the 1950s. It wasn't until 1972 that women were granted equal pay for work of equal value. Trade unions in the late seventies and early eighties were getting a bad reputation, and they were often in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. The Builders Labourers Federation was headed up by a very corrupt man whose name was Norm Gallagher. The unlawfulness of the BLF's industry-wide intimidation, violence, extortion, sabotage and financially damaging stoppages is widely documented. Following a royal commission into the BLF, the union was deregistered. Gallagher was convicted of, amongst other things, obtaining building materials to build himself a beach house—all for himself, instead of for his union and his workers. I can only say I hope that is not going on these days! While the bad boys of the union movement did their best to overshadow the good parts of the union movement, the union movement itself was changing. Yes, union membership was falling—not helped by Norm and his mates—but the unions that survived and grew were often dominated by women: nurses, teachers, aged-care workers, textile workers and footwear workers. The modern Australian unionist is more likely to be a woman. According to the latest census, women make up a greater proportion of trade union membership, at 54 per cent, than men, at 46 per cent. Yet a division of a union with the greatest number of women isn't allowed to have a secret ballot to take charge of their future. That's all they're asking for—to take charge of their future. Why does it need to be secret? That is a good question, and the answer is actually more depressing than anything else. It's because these union members have been intimidated in the past. The CFMEU do not want to let them go, because they want their money and they want control of them. How awful, in 2024, that the union wants their money and wants to control them! How about that? I hope the Greens over here are listening to me. I really do. It'd be nice to see some of your females sitting down here listening to this, because this is really important stuff. So let's review: a union with thousands of women, many of them from non-English-speaking backgrounds, wants to be able to have a secret ballot to leave the bully boys of the CFMEU and take control of themselves. That is all they are asking for. That is it. I have to ask: since when did a secret ballot become so controversial? Some of these women made the trip to Canberra this week, and not one serving member of the Greens in the upper or lower house would meet with these women. The women asked to speak to Adam Bandt, the Leader of the Greens, and guess what? He wouldn't meet with them either. He sent a staffer instead, which makes me ask: Where is the Leader of the Greens and his courage? Where is his backbone when it comes to these women? Where is it? I have to say that he's dragging the rest of you down. This is the same Adam Bandt who put out a press release following the March4Justice protest that said: … the men of this government are still not listening. But they can't ignore it and hope women will go away. Right back at you, pot calling kettle! That is exactly what the Greens are doing. They're hoping that if they ignore these women they will go away with their request. Well, they won't, because I've got their backs. When I say I stand up for women, I mean every woman in this country—not just the people I pick out of those women but all of them. The coalition has their backs. Senator Cash has your back. The only people in this place who don't have your back are the Greens and this government—the ones that go on about poor females and how poorly done by they are. They finally have a chance to stand up for these women, and what have they done? They've gone missing in action. That's right—they've run away, and they've bent over to their mates at the CFMEU. They're more worried about their donations than about women's rights in this country. And that's what it comes down to. How can you, in all conscience, vote against these women? If your party is telling you to vote against this bill, I want you to think about how you will feel about betraying these women—these women that you've gone on about for years and years and years, about their equal rights and how they shouldn't be coerced or bullied. It's sitting here in front of you, and you're in silence mode. That's where you're at. We seriously cannot believe anything that comes out of your mouths anymore about females in this country and standing beside them, because it's rubbish. You do not. Both the government and the Greens do not stand beside them. All the passionate speeches that I've heard in this place about domestic violence, all the speeches about how women should be empowered to take control of their own lives—once again, I ask you this, one last time; go away and think about it: did you mean them? Now you're going to have to show it. Will you stand by your words, or will you look like hypocrites? Will you stand by your principles, or do you have none? And, last but not least, will you finally stand up for these women and do everything that you've always talked about when it comes to the women of this country? 09:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak in support of Senator Lambie's private senator's bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024, and I thank Senator Lambie for bringing this bill to the chamber. Personally, I wish she didn't have to. Why do I say that? Because in 2020 the former coalition government actually passed legislation to enable constituent parts of unions who did not want to be part of the larger union to demerge. Why did we do that? Because we saw it as being in the best interests of those workers who said: 'Guess what? The bigger union doesn't suit me'—and I'm going to go through why they may have said that—'and we no longer want to be part of it.' But guess what? The reason we are standing here today—given that, as I said, in 2020 the former coalition government passed laws to allow this to occur—is that unfortunately now the Labor Party are in government and, as we know, once the Labor Party are in the government they must deliver on the union agenda. The question people need to ask themselves is: why? Why do the Labor Party deliver on the union agenda? The answer is very simple: because the Australian Labor Party, as we know it today, was formed by the union movement. They are actually one and the same thing. So, when you say that the Labor Party, when in government, are able to deliver on only one agenda, it's not the agenda that is in the best interests of the Australian people. It's not the agenda that Senator Lambie said is in the interests of, in particular, vulnerable women. And I have met some of those women. They can't be named, for very obvious reasons; we can call a spade a spade in this place: they don't want retribution taken against them for standing up to the most militant union in Australia. But they are screaming out to the Australian Labor Party for help. They are saying to the Australian Labor Party, 'Please, will you allow us at least the decency of a secret ballot to get the hell out of this union?' And do you know what the Australian Labor Party say? As Senator Lambie said, they're very good. They talk the talk, when they talk about protecting women in this country, but they don't walk the walk. And, when this bill goes to a vote, whether it's today or the next time it comes in this place, let's see what the Australian Labor Party actually do. Do you capitulate to the most militant union in Australia? Or do you stand up for the rights of the vulnerable workers, overwhelmingly represented by vulnerable women in this country, and merely give them the opportunity and the right to hold a secret ballot to consider whether they wish to demerge from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, otherwise known as the CFMEU, in Australia? When I met with a number of these women I asked them, 'Why do you want to demerge?' And they were very clear. They said that they are sick and tired—these are Labor Party people saying this—of being associated with the actions of the militant members of the construction division of the CFMEU and its current leader, John Setka. I said to them, 'Tell me why, though.' And they talked about intimidation, standover tactics and even violence from members of this union. As I sat there and listened to them it was pretty obvious to me: well, why wouldn't these women want to be given the opportunity to vote to demerge in a secret ballot? And as Senator Lambie said, we all understand why it's got to be a secret ballot. You couldn't put your hand up and have the unions watching you do this, because you'd soon find out what they thought of you. But, under the Albanese government, they're not even allowed the opportunity, in a secret ballot, to demerge from the most militant union in this country. As I've said, I'd like to see this bill go further. I would personally have liked to have seen the Australian Labor Party not bring in the changes that they did, which actually threw the good policy—which the unions asked for in 2020 and which we delivered for the union movement, in the very best interests of the workers of the unions—out the door but a few weeks ago. I thought that in this country we held dear the principle of freedom of association. I thought we said to Australians: 'We fundamentally believe in your right to be or not to be a member of a union. It's your right—freedom of association.' That's why we passed our laws in 2020. It's because we fundamentally believe in freedom of association. This is your choice. It is not my choice. It is not Senator Lambie's choice. It's certainly not the Australian Labor Party's choice, yet the Australian Labor Party stand here today, for all their big headlines—as I often say, always look behind the press release with the Australian Labor Party because the press release is just some nice words. Look at what they're actually doing—they've already done it. They have taken away the right of workers—in this case, textile, clothing and footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers—to demerge from the CFMEU if they so choose. So much for freedom of association under the Australian Labor Party! But what's even more ironic—the minister talked about closing loopholes. I am yet to understand how this was a loophole, because, when the now Labor government were in opposition, they actually supported the legislation the coalition government put through. This is what Minister Burke said in 2020: The problem with the provisions as they currently exist is that they only provide a window of between two and five years after an amalgamation in which a vote of that kind can take place. It's a narrow window that doesn't contemplate the possibility that the desire for a demerger and the reasons for a demerger may arise after that five-year window. He didn't just say it. He then voted for our legislation. Assistant Minister McAllister was even more strident in her comments. She said: We also need to recognise the principle of freedom of association, which includes a right to join or leave a group, and that right doesn't only operate within a three-year time period … I'm no longer sure what happened. You believed in freedom of association in opposition when we brought forward the legislation. You acknowledged that there were problems with the provision, but I'm beginning to think that Minister Burke and Assistant Minister McAllister are now very much like the Prime Minister of this country, Mr Albanese. They say their word is their bond. Again, look behind what they say. By their own actions it is patently evident that their word is not their bond. They don't believe in freedom of association. They don't believe that there are problems with the provisions. In fact, they've now created problems with the provisions. I'm not sure, again, what loophole they were trying to close when they supported the closing of the loophole back in 2020. Why would members want to get out of a union? Let's consider that question. For example, what if one part of the organisation in question has a record of not complying with the law, and this causes reputational damage for the amalgamated organisation? What if workers in another part—timber, manufacturing, footwear, textiles—want to get out? What are the Australian Labor Party saying in this place? They are saying, 'No, you cannot.' So, as I said, I am very pleased that Senator Lambie has brought this bill forward because, like Senator Lambie, the coalition are very, very pleased to be able to fight for the rights of members of the manufacturing division of the CFMEU—which includes the textile, clothing and footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers—to hold a secret ballot to demerge from the CFMEU. As Senator Lambie has said, this is a union made up mainly of women that isn't allowed a secret ballot to take charge of its own future—wow! Shame on the Australian Labor Party. I hope I never see another photo of any of you standing next to those women who are on bended knee begging you for the right to hold a secret ballot so they can demerge from this militant union. But you have no shame. I'm quite sure you'll be out there taking photos with them, yet you won't deliver on what I would say are fundamental rights for them: (a) freedom of association and (b) the right to get out of this union and not be associated with them. Why don't these women want to be associated with the CFMEU? Well, let's see what the High Court of Australia has said about this union. This is not me speaking; let's look at what the highest court in the land has said about this union: it is a 'serial offender' that will 'engage in whatever action, and make whatever threats, it wishes, without regard to the law'. And, at that time of the handing down of this judgment, the union: had contravened laws on approximately 150 occasions; was well resourced, having more than sufficient means to pay any penalty that the court might have been disposed to impose; and treated penalties for serious breaches of the law as just a cost of doing business. What is the reality then for the manufacturing division and the textile section of the union? This is their very basic reality. They do not want to be affiliated with this militancy. They do not want to be affiliated with this law breaking. As Senator Lambie put forward in her second reading speech, a union with thousands of women, many of them from non-English speaking backgrounds, wants to be able to have a secret ballot to leave the CFMEU and take control of themselves. Wow! I would have thought that with that sentence alone, Senator Lambie, you could just put the question, the bill would be supported unanimously, we could send a message down to the House, it could go through the House, and we could stand in solidarity with these thousands of women. But that's not going to be the case. Let's talk about why it is not going to be the case. We know why: they have no money. That part of the union has no money, but the part of the union that does have the money is the part that is dictating the shots. As I said, the Labor Party love taking money from the union. In the last two years the CFMEU donated nearly $5 million to the ALP—$4.8 million. That's a lot of money. The total donation from unions was $22.4 million. In 2022-23 it was $5.7 million. In 2021-22 it was $16.7 to the ALP, with an additional $23.37 million in political campaigning from the union movement. Where do we end up? We end up in a very simple position where the Australian Labor Party, with their opposition to this bill, will be saying to all of the union members who want to get out and to all of those women—in particular, the vulnerable women who want to no longer be associated with this militancy—'We can't support you. Quite frankly, when it comes to the scheme of things, you're completely, totally and utterly irrelevant to us and our agenda. The militancy and the money are going to speak, and we will not be standing with you to give you a very basic right that the former coalition government was prepared to legislate for you.' 09:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'd like to thank Senator Lambie for introducing the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024. Whilst we recognise and appreciate the position put forward by Senator Lambie and the motivation behind the bill, we understand that there are ongoing discussions between the relevant parties. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions, and as such the government will not be supporting this bill. 09:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Thousands of casual miners working in central Queensland or the Hunter Valley are each owed, on average, for wage theft, back pay of around $33,000 per year for every year of service. That's $33,000 per year. If you're a casual, you're likely to be owed an estimated $33,000 per year as a victim of Australia's largest wage theft. How? It's due to the CFMEU union bosses betraying and controlling workers, because the CFMEU was the sole union in coalmining production. When entities lack competition, they tend to behave with impunity due to a lack of accountability. They can do whatever they bloody well want. We support Senator Lambie's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 because it encourages competition for the unions and gives freedom of choice to workers, and it portrays fairness. I'll move to Senator Lambie's excellent bill after closing on the largest wage theft scam, because that illustrates, yet again, the importance of Senator Lambie's bill to protect workers from unaccountable union bosses. A team of experienced workplace lawyers, consultants and coalminers reviewed and analysed five significant labour hire coalmining enterprise agreements. The CFMEU were involved in, were a party to, or signed all five agreements. This is the report of these experts. The Fair Work Commission approved all five agreements. The enterprise agreements all underpay the award. For example, for the CoreStaff 2018 enterprise agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $22,623. It gets worse. For the FES 2018 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $27,563. For the WorkPac 2019 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $33,555. For the Chandler Macleod 2020 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated $39,341. For the TESA Group 2022 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $40,645. It's all due to collusion between the CFMEU, labour hire companies and the Fair Work Commission. The CFMEU signed and approved all. The CFMEU agreed in writing—we've seen the letter—to not pursue complaints that workers raised. The Chandler Macleod group, one of the parties to the enterprise agreement, is a subsidiary of the world's largest labour hire company, Recruit Holdings—a foreign multinational. How did this happen? For a decade, CFMEU union bosses have betrayed coalminers. The Fair Work Commission has betrayed workers in approving enterprise agreements paying far less than the award, and the Fair Work Ombudsman turned a blind eye to it all and refused to get involved. The CFMEU's mining division, the Fair Work Commission and some large labour hire companies have colluded to screw workers using enterprise agreements that are unlawful. As I said, we commissioned an experienced team to investigate Australia's largest wage theft case involving thousands of miners across the industry for up to a decade. They were stunned at the brazen collusion between the CFMEU union bosses, employers, Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman. Some of these consultants and lawyers have over 40 years of experience in industrial relations and were stunned with what they confirmed was happening across our coal industry. The workers' supposed protectors, the CFMEU union bosses and the government's Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman, have cruelly betrayed workers en masse. I've written to the current and former members for the Hunter in federal parliament, to CFMEU union bosses and to Minister Burke. All have done nothing. They buried the issue to protect union bosses. Let's move to Senator Lambie's bill. I support Senator Lambie's bill. The issue she raises is symptomatic of many large unions and the decline of the union movement under unaccountable union bosses, who are tarnishing the movement. Labor's recent legislation giving enormous power to union bosses will eventually hurt the union movement and unions overall because it entrenches the huge monopoly power of union bosses and removes accountability. The union movement will crumble because of that lack of accountability. Workers will abandon it, as they already are. An essential freedom of the Australian workplace scene should be the freedom for workers to choose who they want to represent their interests through a choice as to the union they want to join. There are thousands of women in the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union, currently part of the CFMEU. Many of those women have expressed dissatisfaction with the representation the CFMEU provides them through their membership. Unfortunately, many of these members, who often have limited English language proficiency, are handicapped by having experienced exploitation, underpayment, intimidation and poor working conditions. The Labor government, with the Greens, have to date voted to prevent these women from exercising their right to choose to leave the CFMEU. These women are afraid of intimidation after losing their right to an anonymous vote—women afraid, in Australia, of union thugs. This is as a result of the passing of the draconian Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. As a coalminer working at coalfaces, mostly underground, around Australia, I was a proud union member—back when the coalminers union was the Miners Federation, a strong, honest union. As a mine manager and, later, as an executive general manager, I dealt with many honourable union delegates who strongly spoke for, and served, their members' interests. The union movement has a proud history, and in Australia that includes a proud history of women playing a lead role in the movement. It's a fact, though, that as a result of some powerful union bosses who could only be described as cowardly, dishonest thugs or possibly criminals there's been a decline in union membership and subsequent loss of union power in the Australian industrial landscape. This means a loss of membership funds and other moneys that have historically flowed to the Labor Party. Labor hates to lose campaign money. The TCF women do not wish to be members of the CFMEU and to be associated with an organisation that has such a poor reputation and is not providing service in exchange for union fees. In recent years, the CFMEU have been caught selling out their members to benefit large, multinational labour hire firms and enrich the CFMEU, at the members' expense, by unprecedented wage theft. The current Queensland government is trying to prevent the development of the new Red Union, which is making inroads into the previous membership of failed mainstream unions, like the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union and the Queensland Teachers Union, which have failed to adequately protect and represent their members in disputes with employers. Red Union membership is now almost 19,000 and has rapidly grown in the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland and the Teachers Professional Association, and now it's growing in every state around our country. Teachers and nurses, not union bosses, lead the new and rapidly growing union. Fees are around half those of the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union, which provide inferior service and donate membership funds to the Queensland Labor machine. That's why the Queensland Labor government has stepped in with an attempt to ban the Red Union—to protect the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union and the millions of dollars flowing to the Labor machine's election campaign. So we have the Queensland Labor government trying to ban the formation of a new union because it nobbles them. Queensland union bosses publicly and openly showed their power in appointing the new Premier of Queensland. We saw it in Queensland: union bosses saying who would be the next Premier. It's Steven Miles. What's at issue here is freedom of choice. These women need to be able to choose who they wish to represent them and should be able to make those choices in a secret ballot. This is necessary to ensure that intimidation from thugs is kept to a minimum. I support this bill and I commend Senator Lambie for it. It's solid, effective legislation. It supports vulnerable women and is a further step both in recognising the right to freedom of choice and in determining an important issue of autonomy for women and for all workers. The ability of these women to choose to demerge from the CFMEU must be confirmed. Union membership must be voluntary, and there must be freedom of choice as to who someone's representative should be. That is for the benefit of the union movement, because with choice comes competition and then accountability. We support this bill that gives women and workers rights that union bosses have stolen. We call for a public and parliamentary discussion on restoring industrial justice and basic human rights and freedom of choice to workers. We applaud Senator Lambie for her bill as another step towards freeing workers from powerful union bosses. 09:40 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024. I thank Senator Lambie very much indeed for bringing this important bill before the Senate for us to consider. It's something that should be supported by everyone here and by anyone who wants to see freedom of association—enabling individuals within groups and organisations to have the right to determine who they associate with. I can't see why it would even be controversial. Anything that dilutes the pervasive influence and control of the CFMEU is a good thing. This union does appear to be losing friends. First, we saw the mining and energy division wanting to leave, and now the manufacturing division—the textile, clothing and footwear division—wants to do the same. I don't blame them at all. Why would they want to be associated with characters such as John Setka? One of the good things that we've seen is that he's announced he's going to be retiring. It's going to be good to see him exit this landscape of trade union control and, obviously, the negative things that we see that he has been associated with. Nonetheless, it's right and proper that sections within this organisation want to distance themselves from the lawlessness and thuggery that we see within the CFMEU. Why would you want to be associated with it? It's absolute anathema. We're seeing the Labor Party fighting this tooth and nail, although it's surprising to see Senator Watt, the representing minister here in this place, get up and speak for about 40 seconds against this bill. What does that reveal about where things really are within the Labor Party? Where is the line-up of Labor speakers on this bill? This is an absolute joke. It's a shame that this is going on. Given that trade union membership has been in freefall for a long time, they don't want to see the unions break themselves apart. According to the ABS, union membership in the private sector is at 8.2 per cent. That is a long way from the union's glory days in the 1970s, when union membership was at 51 per cent. It was 51 per cent in 1976, and it has dropped to less than 10 per cent. That includes workforces such as the public service, where we know there's a much higher union membership, and it includes nurses. When my wife was a nurse, she had to be part of the federation to get her insurance; that necessitates membership for some workplaces. Those workplaces are included in that figure. In my home state of Western Australia, in the mining area, union membership is hardly even a thing. People wouldn't even consider it, because they're not seeing the value in it. Here's an organisation that wants to separate from the CFMEU. The textile, clothing and footwear section of the manufacturers part of the CFMEU want to leave, and I think they should be supported in doing so. They should be able to do that. Yet, under the cover of darkness and with the rush through the parliament of the amendments to the so-called closing loopholes bill only a couple of weeks ago, we've seen the right of unions to go through their democratic systems and processes to make a decision to determine for themselves to leave and separate being taken away. Unions should be able to do that and should be supported in doing that, so Senator Lambie is right to bring this bill before us. I would go a step further and not narrowly cast it just to the CFMEU. I think a trade union or any organisation that wants to be able to separate and go its own way so that it can better serve its members should be able to do so. Maybe it could be expanded, Senator Lambie—through you, Chair. I think there's a good case for that to happen. But we know this government is beholden to the trade union movement. They have been since the failed Whitlam government, and that is certainly present in this Labor government. They are absolutely beholden. This government is the gold standard for delivering its paymasters' wish list, and it has proven that since the election. They are resolute in delivering for their traditional owners: the trade union movement, the ones that are funding their existence. They are beholden to them, and they have acted in haste in delivering for them their wishes. Under this government's fair work bills—several have come through this place now—it's attempted to insert pernicious trade union influence in just about every workplace across the country. Let it be remembered that this is the government that abolished the critical role of the ABCC in their first tranche of IR laws—and, boy, did they move at pace with that! We had an about 21-day inquiry, I think it was, into that. That didn't allow time for scrutiny, which seems to be the way with this government. They're happy to do things with real pace and not allow proper scrutiny, as we see with the amendment that this bill is trying to address. The government was resolute in ensuring that the first thing they did—one of the big, hallmark things that they were able to do in their first couple of months of government—was take away the ABCC, which we all know they had their sights set on, and which was actively providing assurance and protection for workers in the construction industry. For the government to take that away has been a real shame. One can hardly think of a bigger Christmas present than the one that was delivered by this government to the trade union movement in November 2022, and that was the abolition of the ABCC. What a glorious Christmas present they all received that year! Master Builders Australia estimates that the abolition of the ABCC alone will cost the economy $47 billion by 2030. Productivity is at an all-time low in this country, and it's little wonder when you don't have a cop on the beat ensuring that workplaces are operating and that there's not undue influence by trade unions that are exerting control not necessarily to the benefit of their members but just in their self-interest. I think it's something that needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately, this government isn't serious about that. The ABCC, an integral oversight body with a proven track record of winning prosecutions against union thuggery, would've been the agency that was more experienced and more strongly placed to provide the supervision of building and construction workplaces. The ABCC was for the longest time the adversary of the CFMEU, and the government couldn't move quickly enough to see the abolishment of that agency after the 2022 election—the same agency which investigated and prosecuted nefarious behaviour and law-breaking activities by the CFMEU. This is what the ABCC was doing, but now that it's no longer there, of course, there's a free-for-all, because this government doesn't want to see these organisations held to account and monitored. It doesn't want to ensure that they are, in fact, providing support in an appropriate way to workers within these industries. A Federal Court judge recognised that there was 'systemic unlawful conduct', while another Federal Court judge once said of the CFMEU: The union has adopted the attitude that it will not comply with any legislative constraints, placed on its operations, with which it disagrees. Such an approach is an anathema in a democratic society. We know that the CFMEU has a long history of being one of the ALP's biggest donors as well. For example, the Victorian branch of the CFMEU was one of the largest donors to the Victorian ALP in the lead-up to the October 2022 Victorian election. We know that total union donations across all unions to the ALP were $22.4 million between 2021 and 2023. Now, $22.4 million is enough to influence your thinking, isn't it? That's why we're seeing this government act in haste to protect their union. Not only that; they also spent a motza on campaigning directly for the Labor Party, so it might not necessarily be money that's going to the Labor Party through their donations. You see their ads on television and social media, where they pump millions of dollars. Through disclosure we know that $23.37 million has been directly spent on political campaigning by the union movements. They're entitled to do that. I've got no problem with that. Any organisation is entitled to campaign in this free democratic society that we live in. That's not my beef. My point is that when you see the enormous amount of money that is spent it's little wonder that these guys over here, the Albanese led government, are completely beholden to the trade union movement, especially the CFMEU. I think the fact that they can't come in here and defend against this bill shows it all. Getting only a 40-second speech from the representing minister, Minister Watt, here in this place on this issue bells the cat and shows exactly what's going on. They are embarrassed by this union, and they should really be doing something about it. One thing that they can do is support Senator Lambie's bill. It's very simple. We're just wanting to see freedom come into the trade union movement to allow people to exercise their democratic right. If groups within the CFMEU want to separate, and they think they can best serve their constituency and their members by being out there on their own, then that is a great thing. The other question on the deafening silence on this debate is: where are the Greens in coming out in support of the women that are part of the textile, footwear and clothing industry? We know there are significantly higher proportions of women working in this sector compared to other parts of the CFMEU. Of course they don't want to be associated with the likes of John Setka. Where are the Greens? They are always in here advocating, rightly, for women—good on you; fantastic. But where are they on this issue? Are they also beholden? It seems that they are, because they're deathly silent on this. Come on! Where is the Greens line-up of speakers? Was there even one on this list? I don't think there was. Not a single Green was prepared to speak on this, to defend this. They would be embarrassed to stand up here and do that, because they know they're complicit in it by standing by and allowing this lawlessness to continue. I must conclude. In 2020, the former coalition passed legislation that enabled greater flexibility to branches and divisions of amalgamated registered organisations. We provided an opportunity to withdraw from amalgamation if that would better serve them and their members. Interestingly, the Labor Party supported it at that time. In opposition, Labor supported that amendment. Yet we've seen now, in government, that as soon as they had the opportunity they've ripped that away. Just like with the stage 3 tax cuts, the Labor Party has a different position when in government, and it's shameful. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union should be allowed to depart from the notorious CFMEU if they want to. It makes sense that, where one part of the organisation has a record of not complying with the law, this causes reputational damage to them, good people who are wanting to represent the rights of their workers and their members. If they're embarrassed or don't want to have that association—and I completely understand why—and want to disassociate themselves from those activities, they should be able to. Why would you continue to force them to be wedded to lawlessness? Why would you continue to force them to be wedded to thuggish behaviour? It's unacceptable, and they should be free to leave. As I said at the start, I commend Senator Lambie for bringing this bill forward. It's something that she has been a strong advocate for. I recognise—particularly, out of all of the crossbenchers, I've got to say—her application in the inquiries. I'm deputy chair of the education and employment committee, and Senator Lambie was at almost all of the hearings that we held. She's diligent. She's focused on this. And I think this bill is worthy of the full support of everyone in this Senate. Debate adjourned. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 687

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023

Second Reading 687 09:55 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move my amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) have been implemented in the United Kingdom and United States to help combat foreign bribery by incentivising companies to self-report; and (b) is of the opinion that: (i) establishing a DPA scheme in Australia is worthy of consideration, (ii) such a scheme should not function as a 'get-out-of-jail-free card' and should prioritise transparency so as to avoid the creation of a two-tiered justice system where corporate criminals are able to secretly negotiate agreements related to wrongdoings while private individuals are subject to the full force of a court of law, (iii) further reform is needed to abolish facilitation payments, and (iv) further reform is needed to prevent companies convicted of foreign bribery from being awarded Australian government contracts, potentially through a whole-of-government debarment scheme". Quorum formed. 09:58 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023. This is an integral piece of reform to tackle the issue of foreign bribery and what it does to our country and, in fact, to innocent people. I first want to detail the lack of care which was the former government's approach to this issue of foreign bribery and the lack of seriousness with which the former government approached not only the question of foreign bribery but also looking into allegations of foreign bribery when they arose in this country and other countries. But were any of us really surprised? This was, after all, a coalition government. It was a coalition government of incompetence—10 years of waste and denial, with the prime minister of five portfolios trashing the principles of responsible Westminster government. But I guess that is just how the modern Liberal Party rolls: undermining our democracy at every turn, every chance they get. The inept action of the former government means there is a lot for us to do in government, so the whole purpose of this bill is to strengthen the legal framework for prosecuting foreign bribery and to give effect to Australia's international obligations under the OECD antibribery convention. The Albanese government has no tolerance whatsoever for corruption of any kind, whether in the public sector and from those opposite or in the private sector. Foreign bribery is corruption. It hurts communities, halts economic development and undermines the rule of law. So, as I said from the outset, we are cleaning up the mess of the former government, and the measures in this bill are long overdue. The measures in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 address challenges with detecting, investigating and prosecuting foreign bribery in Australia. These measures build on our work as a government to date in tackling corruption. Undetected and unpunished bribery undermines the reputation of all Australian businesses and negatively impacts business and government relations. The Australian government has a zero-tolerance policy in relation to foreign bribery and supports ethical business practices. We have known how important it has been, since taking government, for the Albanese government, through the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, to go around the globe, restoring the international reputation of this country because it was so damaged by the former government at all levels. So a great deal of time in the first six months of this new government was spent restoring the Australian reputation internationally. The bill amends the current foreign bribery offence to replace the requirement that the advantage sought be 'not legitimately due' with the concept of 'improperly influencing a foreign public official', to capture bribes concealed as legitimate payments. The bill also broadens the scope of the offence to ensure that it keeps pace with the evolution of foreign bribery conduct. Ideally, the new offence will capture bribery conducted for personal advantage, not just as a business advantage. The bill also introduces a new offence for companies that fail to prevent foreign bribery by associates unless the company can show that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent foreign bribery. As per the bill, it will require the Attorney-General to publish guidance on the steps that a body corporate can take to prevent an associate from bribing foreign public officials. When ordinary Australians commit crimes, they feel the full force of the law, as they should. However, under the deferred prosecution agreement scheme proposed by the former Liberal government, a company that engaged in serious corrupt crime, including foreign bribery, would have been able to negotiate a fine, agree to a set of conditions and have their case put in indefinite hold. That's not good policy. That's not good for Australia. Ordinary Australians get the full force of the law when they commit a crime, so why should this government fail to take the same action in cases of foreign bribery? As the Attorney-General said in the other place, the Albanese government will only entertain the introduction of such a scheme as a measure of last resort and, in any event, after the measures introduced by this bill have been implemented and given time to operate and work effectively to fight foreign bribery. We know that corruption is never acceptable, and this government's starting point is that, when companies engage in serious criminal wrongdoing like foreign bribery, they should feel the full force of the Australian law. As I said at the outset, this bill enhances Australia's response to foreign bribery and supports our obligations under the OECD antibribery convention. As my learned colleague and former senator in this place—he went to the other place, but he's still a good guy—David Smith said: What makes this bill particularly critical is recent reports of millions of taxpayer dollars allegedly being paid to foreign officials through suspicious contracts between private companies and subcontractors engaged by the Department of Home Affairs on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea. I was in Senate estimates when much of this was exposed. Shame on the former government! If only Australians really knew the lengths they would go to to look after their mates. In fact, these allegations of suspicious contracts are from the time when the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, was the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Dutton was the boss. He was the minister responsible at the time. He failed in his duty. He failed in his duty to protect the Australian taxpayer. He failed his government and he failed the Australian people. It is utterly shameful that the former government, over years and years, over two terms of parliament, failed to legislate to give effect to Australia's international obligations and failed to do what was right. Mr Dutton failed to act on foreign bribery. He was made aware countless times that he failed in his duty of care as the minister. Since coming to government, we have sought to fix up the mess in so many areas across the responsibilities of federal parliament. There is nothing more important than to protect Australia from foreign bribery and the impact that that has on the Australian community, on the Australian economy and, just as importantly, on our reputation internationally. We are leaders in this part of the world, and we have a responsibility as a global citizen to ensure that we stamp out, never accept, never condone and never fail to act on foreign bribery. The Albanese government is in charge and is committed to making our country a better place. We are committed to fighting crime wherever it may be found, and this includes bribery here and abroad. There is nothing more important than to secure the Australian community from acts of bribery and foreign interference. We've seen what that has done in other countries. This bill demonstrates our government's commitment to tackling corruption, and, in particular, to ensuring our laws are effective in detecting, investigating and prosecuting foreign bribery. I know there are some people in this place, like the Greens, who are so critical of the ACIC, the AFP, AUSTRAC and other organisations because, in their utopia, these organisations don't do enough. I want to place on the record my appreciation for those organisations and the work they do. These sorts of investigations don't happen overnight. They don't even take weeks; they can take months and then take years. We have a responsibility in this place to ensure, when there is foreign bribery and foreign intervention in our country, that we act. It's the Commonwealth government's responsibility, and that is why the Albanese government will always do the right thing by the Australian people and will always be there to endeavour to make our country fairer and safer from criminal engagement in foreign and domestic bribery and any other organised crime. We are serious about protecting the Australian community because we understand what the economy means to all Australians and our responsibility as international good neighbours. Sitting suspended from 10:10 to 11:15 PETITIONS 688 PETITIONS Woppa/Great Keppel Island 688 NOTICES 689 NOTICES Presentation 689 Withdrawal 689 11:16 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Pursuant to notice given on 28 February, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 for six sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio Measures No. 1) Regulations 2023. COMMITTEES 689 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 689 Report 689 11:17 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the second report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 2 OF 2024 29 February 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 28 February 2024 at 7.13 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 March 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 April 2024 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); (c) the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 [No. 2] be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 March 2024; and (d) the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 April 2024 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024 Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024 Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023 National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024 Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Legislate the Date to End Live Sheep Export Bill 2024. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024 Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 29 February 2024 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Competition and Consumer Amendment(Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow for an enquiry into this Legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): March Possible reporting date: 15 March 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To address stakeholders concerns about the Bill and ensure thorough scrutiny. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): March and April Possible reporting date: 24 April 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow for an enquiry into this Legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): March Possible reporting date: 10 April 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:17 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I have circulated an amendment to the motion before the Senate, and I move that amendment: At the end of the motion, add: "and: (a) the provisions of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2024; and (b) the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 March 2024". I want to speak very briefly to part (a) of the Greens' amendment, as to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. That is an extremely benign-sounding piece of legislation, but what that legislation does is anything but benign. This is a desperate last-minute attempt by Labor to allow the minister to bypass environmental law when approving new offshore gas projects. And why is Labor doing this? It's because they are run by the gas cartel in this country, and this is the big corporate gas giants of Australia reaching their power and influence into the heart of our democracy. I predict, very confidently, that the Labor and Liberal parties in this place will collude to vote down the Greens' amendment, and that is, of course, because the gas cartel donates massively to both the Labor and Liberal parties, and we all know that corporations do not give political donations for nothing. This is the institutionalised bribery of Australia's politics. Corporations don't give those massive multimillion-dollar donations for nothing. They expect outcomes. And you know what? Outcomes are exactly what they're going to get today, because the Greens' attempt to have this dangerous bill that erodes environmental protection for offshore gas projects in this country subject to a proper and rigorous scrutiny by a Senate inquiry is going to be voted down by the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics today. The changes contained in this legislation are undemocratic and they are dangerous. The planet is literally cooking, folks, and it is nothing short of a disgrace that the major parties in this place, in the middle of the climate of the earth breaking down around us, are still doing the bidding of the psychopaths who run the gas corporations in this country that are cooking the planet. It is an utter disgrace and shows that our democratic system is completely and utterly broken, and one of the things that is breaking our democratic system every day is the use of institutionalised bribery of political donations. The changes in this legislation effectively hand the resources minister broad-ranging powers to reduce environmental protection and reduce consultation obligations, with no oversight from the environment minister. Now, the pro-gas expansion amendments to this largely unrelated bill about protecting workers' rights have been delivered by the Labor Party operating on behalf of the gas cartel. This, of course, sets Minister King on a collision course with environment minister Plibersek, who has promised to fix Australia's broken environment protection laws. Where are those reforms? We are entitled to ask—they are well overdue, and it's about time we started putting on the record that we are heading towards a massive broken promise from environment minister Plibersek and the Labor Party, who went to the last election pledging to fix EPBC and to date have done precisely nothing to do that. Of course, this is all about the gas cartel. This is all about the Liberal Party and the Labor Party delivering for their political donors. This is all about the giant gas corporations who are cooking this planet, breaking our democratic system and getting outcomes for the political donations that they made. Senator Chisholm knows that, because he has come from the gas sector. Senator Duniam knows that. We all know what's going on here. The fix is in, ladies and gentlemen, and in a minute, after my colleague Senator Cox makes a contribution to this debate, we are going to see proof positive that it is actually the gas cartel that runs this chamber, not the Labor or Liberal parties. 11:23 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Thanks to my esteemed colleague Senator McKim, who is always ever so articulate in the way he puts things—that's why we know he has a particular swag about him. But what an absolute farce that this government is hiding such a large shift—a shift of power—in an offshore-worker safety bill. This government has tried to play it off like it's nothing. They've downplayed it. They're trying to say: 'There's nothing to see here. It's not going to do what you think it is going to do'—those are the words of the resources minister Madeleine King, from the other place. They're stitching up that deal, as Senator McKim just said, without any scrutiny to the detail. They're putting a very significant change in this bill which essentially is such an important issue. I do not see this government engaging in the offshore-worker safety field, and they know how important it is to protect offshore-worker safety. We've had many instances, particularly in my home state of Western Australia, with offshore gas rigs and worker safety. This government, and their friends over the aisle there who they're holding hands with today on this, want to make sure that this bill is about fast-tracking the environmental approvals in schedule 2 part 2 in this bill. They don't want that to be scrutinised in this place, the house of review. They don't want that to be scrutinised at all. There is absolutely no reason for this, and I'll tell you why there's no reason. I met with Minister King, the Minister for Resources, yesterday as part of our quarterly meetings. I asked her to explain to me why it is so important to ram this through after an FOI revealed a letter from Santos's CEO, Kevin Gallagher, asking the minister to make sure that those approvals that they're having so many issues with are watered down—'issues' like asking First Nations people for permission, for free, prior and informed consent to drill in Commonwealth waters for offshore gas to export for their bottom line. It is not for the Australian public, because we know PRRT is broken. These guys want to hold hands over that. They want to make sure that there is no scrutiny. Minister King stood in the other place yesterday during question time and said, 'It'll do the same thing your bill will do,' to the Greens member for Brisbane, Stephen Bates. It will not do the same thing our bill will do. Our bill is giving voice to First Nations people. It will make sure that we get free, prior and informed consent. It will make sure First Nations people are included as relevant people. That's the loophole in the legislation for the offshore petroleum regulations and in the act, and Minister King does not want to admit that. The absolute irony of this is that before the ice age there was First Nations cultural heritage on that land, but it's now under water because those seas rose. And the Minister for Resources, as the only approver, goes out, under NOPTA and offshore leases, on junkets overseas with a begging bowl to Japan and Korea and tells them, 'Please, give Australian money.' It's an embarrassment for offshore regs to be watered down for environmental approvals and also for silencing the voices of First Nations people. I asked the minister yesterday, 'Were the names Tipakalippa and Cooper included on the consultation review that this government is undertaking, which means they weren't included on the list of the 200 people?' 'We're trying to find a blackfella to sign off on them. We're going to put them on the website and say we're doing consultation.' How about the Closing the Gap target about digital access? How about that, government? We know that First Nations people don't have adequate digital access, but you ram it onto your website and say: 'Let's fast-track this. Let's make sure they aren't able to have their say.' This is a government that said it wanted a voice to parliament. How ridiculous—the hypocrisy of saying that when now they want to silence our voices in this bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment that Senator McKim moved to the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted.

The Senate divided. [11:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:34 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: At the end of the motion, add "and the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 not be referred to a committee". Question agreed to. 11:35 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia On behalf of Senator Canavan, I withdraw his amendment to the motion. I move: At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 March 2024". 11:36 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As confidently predicted just 10 minutes ago, the fix is in. The gas cartel has reached into this chamber with its power and influence, and the chamber is about to vote for the most minuscule and ineffective of Senate inquiries into a critical piece of legislation that undermines the consultation requirements for offshore gas projects. This is exactly what the cartel wanted, and it's exactly what the cartel is going to get today. Very instructively, this amendment—which will be supported by the Labor Party—wasn't moved by the Labor Party; it was moved by the Liberal Party. Let's rewind to last year, when Mr Dutton assumed his position as Acting Prime Minister when the government was constructing its response to the High Court decision that, quite rightly, rendered indefinite immigration detention illegal and unlawful in Australia. Here we go again; Mr Dutton is flexing his muscles and Mr Dutton is giving Labor its riding instructions. Make no mistake, the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics—or should I say the Santos and Woodside of Australian politics, because that's what we're dealing with here, the two big gas corporations—are colluding to do over First Nations people. The first thing this government is doing since the Voice referendum is removing a voice from First Nations people, as my friend and colleague Senator Cox said. What an absolute disgrace this is! In the middle of a climate emergency, when First Nations people in this country have been dealt a bitter blow in the result of the referendum, what does the government do? It comes in here and enables the planet cookers by doing over First Nations people and reducing their voice in standing up for their communities and standing up for their country. This is a dark day in the Senate, and it's going to be delivered by the Santos and Woodside of Australian politics—the political parties that take massive donations from the gas cartel and then come in here and vote for whatever the cartel asks them to deliver. The Greens aren't going to have a bar of this. We are not going to do the bidding of the gas cartel. We are not going to accept their filthy political donations. We are not going to collude to do the bidding of the cartel to do over consultation requirements in particular for First Nations Australians, who want to defend their waters, their country and their communities against the rapacious actions of the giant gas corporations in Australia. 11:39 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Free, prior and informed consent. I'd like to see that, in the name of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—whose oceans are ours, who we've protected and maintained for thousands and thousands and thousands of generations. You lot get together, including the native police there— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, withdraw. Senator THORPE 280304 I beg your pardon? The PRESIDENT 112096 I've asked you to withdraw that comment. Withdraw. Senator THORPE 280304 It's a known fact. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. Withdraw that comment, otherwise I will withdraw your— Senator THORPE 280304 I withdraw my comment on native police. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, no! That is not what I accept in this place. I do not want the offensive comment repeated. Senator THORPE 280304 It's not offensive. It's a fact. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. Simply withdraw the comment. Senator THORPE 280304 I withdraw for now. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe— Senator THORPE 280304 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Please continue. Senator THORPE 280304 Unfortunately, the history of this country includes having our own people be part of our own genocide. In this case, that is what is happening. Free, prior and informed consent has not been obtained from the traditional owners whose land it is to destroy our oceans and every totem in our oceans that are for all of our future generations. Not just blackfellas in this country but all of our generations depend on what is in the ocean and in all of the oceans surrounding this beautiful country. You lot get together, and you are in bed with the developers. Your donations are so important to your political agendas that you're willing to sacrifice our oceans and the totems that belong in those oceans and the songlines that belong in those oceans. Shame on you all—shame for the genocide that each and every one of you continue because your donations are so much more important. How do you sleep at night, knowing that you are destroying your own country and your own ocean? What do your ancestors say about that? Shame! Seismic testing on my country—where's your consent? You're going to kill the whales. What about the whale stories and the Dreaming and the songlines that connect the oceans around this country? If you want to talk about truth-telling, why don't you talk about the truth for those defenceless totems that we've maintained? Are you willing to kill them in the name of your party and your party donation? Is that what you're willing to do? You are complicit in the ongoing genocide, which includes destroying our oceans and destroying our songlines, all for a dirty little donation to get you re-elected. Shame on you all! I hope this haunts you all forever. I hope this haunts your families forever. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, withdraw that comment. Senator THORPE 280304 I withdraw the fact. What is wrong with saying that? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. I've asked you to withdraw the comment. Senator THORPE 280304 I withdraw the comment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator THORPE 280304 This is absolute destruction and devastation for our children's children. You are destroying the oceans. How is that possible? In the face of a climate catastrophe, don't you see what's going on around the world? Your dirty little donations are so much more important because your power in this place takes precedence over your children's future. You all should be absolutely ashamed. There has not been free, prior and informed consent, certainly not from my people, the Djab Wurrung Gunditjmara people, whose ocean is about to be destroyed because of your disgusting, dirty donations. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, I also need to remind you— Senator THORPE 280304 I withdraw that. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, I'm not asking you to withdraw; let me finish—to please make your comments through the chair. Senator THORPE 280304 There is no consent from anybody to destroy Gunditjmara Djab Wurrung ocean. There is no consent. You are all criminals. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, withdraw that comment, please. Senator THORPE 280304 I withdraw, but you're doing the wrong thing, and when you do the wrong thing, things happen. 11:45 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I just want to stand up and proudly support the 20,000 Australian men and women people who work in our fantastic oil and gas industry. They do very hard work on behalf of all of us. It is an incredibly difficult and risky endeavour for anyone to work at, especially on an offshore oil rig. They spend months away from their families, locked in a small area with their work colleagues. It's a risky job from time to time, and they deserve our support. They work for our nation. They work to keep us all going. The Greens say that the oil and gas industry is a dirty industry. Well, it's dirty in the sense that those who work on an oil rig end up with grease and oil and mud all over them at the end of the day. They've got to have a shower at the end of the day. At the end of their work, they have to have a shower. All of you over there and me and all of us here have the liberty of showering before work, and it's a very easy life. Those people work really hard, and you have no idea of what they have to go through. Not only do you have no idea about it—through you, Chair—but the Greens are absolute hypocrites, because I remember that only 18 months or so ago the Greens were in here supporting a bill which enforced— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, you need to withdraw the comment you made in relation to senators. Senator CANAVAN 245212 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 And you really need to be focused on the amendment. Senator CANAVAN 245212 Yes, I am focused on the amendment, because the Greens are trying to shut down this industry through this amendment. That's what they're trying to do. Just 18 months ago, the Greens were in this chamber supporting cheap gas. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, I know it doesn't bother you, but I am going to remind senators that other speakers were listened to in silence, and whether you agree or not, it's appropriate for Senator Canavan to be listened to in silence. Senator CANAVAN 245212 The Greens actually wanted cheap gas. They wanted to cap the price of gas. So what is it? They wanted gas that badly that they wanted a cheap price for the gas. That's what they supported, because we all know that we need the products of the oil and gas industry to power our homes and so that we can drive around our country; therefore, we need to support them for ourselves, not just on behalf of those men and women who sacrifice their livelihoods for us. They should be supported. Their hard work should be recognised, and that's why I'm proud to stand with them and oppose the Greens' efforts in this place. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for this debate has expired. I'm going to put Senator Ruston's amendment first. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

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

33 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 12 NOES 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add "but: (a) consideration of the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 [No. 2] be deferred to the next meeting of the committee; and (b) the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024 be referred to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 March 2024". Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. BUSINESS 697 BUSINESS Rearrangement 697 11:55 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That— (a) government business order of the day no. 6 (Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024) be considered from 12.15 pm; (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business notice of motion no. 489 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 697 11:56 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Kovacic for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 697 NOTICES Postponement 697 COMMITTEES 697 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 697 11:56 The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. DOCUMENTS 698 DOCUMENTS Basin Officials Committee, Minister for the Environment and Water, Murray-Darling Basin Plan, Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations Funding Agreements 698 Order for the Production of Documents 698 11:57 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Davey, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on 7 February 2024, orders for production of documents nos. 455, 456 and 457, relating to the Murray-Darling Basin, were agreed by the Senate, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water to table documents by no later than 26 February 2024, and (ii) in a letter dated 23 February 2024, the Minister for the Environment and Water advised that she proposes to table the documents by 26 March 2024; (b) requires, unless the orders are complied with in full by 26 March 2024, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water to attend the chamber after motions to take note of answers on 27 March 2024 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order; (c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and (d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 482 standing in the name of Senator Davey and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:01]
(The President—Senator Lines)

42 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed.

Department of Social Services 699 Order for the Production of Documents 699 12:03 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than 1 pm on 18 March 2024, every version, including any working drafts, of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan Summary Paper developed by the Department of Social Services and shared with the Minister for Housing and/or her office. Question agreed to. Department of Health and Aged Care 699 Order for the Production of Documents 699 12:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for the production of documents no. 468 (the order), agreed to by the Senate on 27 February 2024 relating to the final report from the Aged Care Taskforce and the research conducted by Kantar Public has not been complied with, and (ii) the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care stated that 'response to this request is nil' on the grounds that the final report is 'currently subject to Cabinet consideration' and that the research conducted by Kantar Public was provided to 'assist it provide advice to government'; (b) rejects the grounds on which the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care has provided as to why the order cannot be complied with, noting that: (i) while disclosure of the deliberations of Cabinet has long been recognised as a potentially acceptable ground for a claim of public interest immunity, neither the Minister for Aged Care nor the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care made a public interest immunity claim outlining why the order cannot be complied with, and (ii) advice to Government is not an acceptable ground to not provide information, nor is it an acceptable ground for a claim of public interest immunity; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care to comply with the order by no later than 3.30 pm on Thursday, 29 February 2024. 12:04 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 minister has committed to releasing the report in due course. An order to produce documents in a little over four hours is unreasonable. On that basis, we will be opposing the motion. Question agreed to. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 by leave—The government ask that our names be recorded as opposed. Department of Defence 699 Order for the Production of Documents 699 12:05 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 1 pm on 29 March 2024, the following: (a) all correspondence since June 2022 between the Department of Defence and Anchoram Consulting, and any other party involved in preparing the Anchoram report delivered in April 2023, in relation to the OneDefence Data Program; (b) all correspondence since June 2022 between Dr Maria Milosavljevic GAICD FACS, Matt Yannopolous PSM and/or Peter Alexander about the commissioning, progress, delivery, findings and recommendations of the Anchoram report received by Defence in April 2023, and any related correspondence concerning the OneDefence Data Program; (c) all correspondence related to a Defence-wide cloud-based data management system between KPMG and Mr Peter Corcoran during his time at the Department of Defence as Assistant Secretary of ICT Architecture; and (d) all correspondence related to a Defence-wide cloud-based data management system between the Department of Defence and Mr Peter Corcoran during his time at KPMG as Director of Cyber. Question agreed to. Department of Defence 700 Order for the Production of Documents 700 12:06 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, by no later than 1 pm on Thursday, 28 March 2024, the following: (a) a list of all meetings between Brookline Advisory, including but not limited to those involving Lidija Ivanovski and/or Gerard Richardson, and the Minister of Defence and/or his office since 1 April 2023; (b) a list of all meetings between Brookline Advisory representatives, including but not limited to those involving Lidija Ivanovski and/or Gerard Richardson, and the Minister for Industry and Science and/or his office since 1 April 2023; (c) a list of all meetings between PsiQuantum and the Minister for Defence and/or his office since 21 May 2022; (d) a list of all meetings between PsiQuantum and the Minister for Industry and Science and/or his office since 21 May 2022; (e) a list of any visits from the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Industry and Science and/or the Minister for Defence Industry, and/or any of their representatives, to PsiQuantum since 21 May 2022; (f) any correspondence between PsiQuantum and the Minister for Defences' office, the Minister for Industry and Science office and/or the Minister for Defence Industry office since 21 May 2022; (g) any correspondence between Brookline Advisory and the Minister for Defence office, the Minister for Industry and Science office and/or the Minister for Defence Industry office since 1 April 2023; (h) any correspondence between Mandala and the Minister for Defence office, the Minister for Industry and Science office and/or the Minister for Defence Industry office since 1 April 2023; (i) any correspondence between the Minister for Defence office and the Minister for Industry and Science office regarding a quantum expression of interest (EoI) since 1 January 2023; and (j) any correspondence between the Minister for Industry and Science office and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources regarding a quantum EoI since 1 January 2023. Question agreed to. Department of Industry, Science and Resources 700 Order for the Production of Documents 700 12:06 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 18 March 2024: (a) any correspondence between the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and gas producers, joint venture partners of gas producers, customers of gas producers, prospective customers of gas producers and members of the Japanese or South Korean governments in relation to any proposed change to the regime for approving offshore gas facilities sent between 1 July 2023 and 26 February 2024; (b) any correspondence between the Minister for Resources and gas producers, joint venture partners of gas producers, customers of gas producers, prospective customers of gas producers and members of the Japanese or South Korean governments in relation to any proposed change to the regime for approving offshore gas facilities sent between 1 July 2023 and 26 February 2024; (c) any briefing notes, minutes, file notes or emails regarding meetings conducted between the Minister for Resources and/or the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and gas partners, joint venture partners of gas producers, customers of gas producers, prospective customers of gas producers and members of the Japanese or South Korean governments in relation to any proposed change to the regime for approving offshore gas facilities sent between 1 July 2023 and 26 February 2024; (d) any papers or briefs prepared by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources in relation to any proposed change to the offshore gas approval regime prepared between 1 July 2023 and 26 February 2024; (e) any correspondence between the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA)/Australian Energy Producers (AEP) in relation to any proposed change to the regime for approving offshore gas facilities sent between 1 July 2023 and 26 February 2024; (f) any correspondence between the Minister for Resources and the APPEA/AEP in relation to any proposed change to the regime for approving offshore gas facilities sent between 1 July 2023 and 26 February 2024; and (g) all documents, including background materials, agenda papers and minutes, relating to the January to February 2024 visit to Japan and South Korea undertaken by the Minister for Resources. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 488, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)

16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 701 BILLS Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 701

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023

Second Reading 701 12:11 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government thanks senators who have made contributions to this debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the legal framework for prosecuting foreign bribery and to give effect to Australia's international obligations under the OECD antibribery convention. The bribery of foreign officials by Australians is a serious criminal offence and can have far-reaching consequences for Australia's global reputation as a corruption-free trading partner. The bill amends the current foreign bribery offence to replace the requirement that the advantage sought be not legitimately due with the broader concept of improperly influencing a foreign public official to capture bribes concealed as legitimate, ensuring that the offence keeps pace with the evolution of foreign bribery conduct. The amended offence will capture bribery conducted for a personal advantage, not just a business advantage. It removes the requirement that the foreign public official be influenced in the exercise of their official duties. It also makes clear that the prosecution does not have to prove that an accused had a specific advantage in mind and that the advantage can be obtained for someone else. The bill also introduces a new offence for companies that fail to prevent foreign bribery by an associate, unless the company can show that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent foreign bribery. In her contribution to the debate Senator Cash spoke at length about the coalition's record on tackling foreign bribery and asserted that the coalition had been pursuing the measures contained in the bill for years. So, let's look at the former government's record. As Senator Cash rightly says, the amendments in this bill are substantially the same as amendments that were first introduced by the previous government in 2017 and reintroduced in 2019. Both bills were announced in strongly worded media releases. But, much like Senator Cash's contribution to this debate, the tough talk was all the former government had to offer when it came to tackling foreign bribery. When it came to action, Senator Cash and her colleagues, including the Leader of the Opposition, came up short: they did nothing. Having introduced a bill to strengthen foreign bribery offences in 2017, the former government allowed the bill to lapse. They never even brought it on for debate. Then, having reintroduced more or less the same bill in 2019, the former government again allowed the bill to lapse and, again, they never even brought it on for debate. Senator Cash's contribution to this debate, trumpeting the coalition nonrecord, is all the more brazen given that she was Attorney-General between March 2021 and May 2022. In other words, Senator Cash was the minister responsible for the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2019, a bill that contained the measures that we have now been debating for over a year. Yet it was never brought on for debate. Just by contributing to this debate on the Albanese government's bill to strengthen foreign bribery offences Senator Cash has done more to tackle the scourge of foreign bribery than she ever did as Attorney-General. In conclusion, this bill enhances Australia's response to foreign bribery and supports our obligations under the OECD antibribery convention. It is worth noting that this bill is one of the key integrity reforms cited by Mr Dennis Richardson in his recent review of integrity concerns and governance arrangements for the management of regional processing administration by the Department of Home Affairs. One of the other key integrity reforms cited by Mr Richardson is his review into the National Anti-Corruption Commission. For years, the former government failed to establish a national anticorruption commission, despite having bipartisan support. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Minister, it now being 12.15, the time for this debate has concluded. You'll be in continuation. Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024 702

Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 702 12:15 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024 will amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the passenger movement charge from $60 to $70 from 1 July 2024. The passenger movement charge is imposed on persons departing Australia for another country and is usually collected by the carrier, such as an airline, at the time the ticket is sold and, at that time, is remitted by the carrier to the Department of Home Affairs. The passenger movement charge helps to fund crucial border protection services, including Immigration and Customs. However, I'd like to acknowledge the concerns raised by the tourism industry about the potential impacts of an increase to the charge in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. The passenger movement charge in Australia is one of the highest departure taxes in the developed world. At a time when we want to be doing everything we can to help and support our tourism industry, it is unfortunate that the government has chosen to increase the passenger movement charge. In 2017 the then shadow tourism minister, Mr Anthony Albanese, said: … the increase in the Passenger Movement Charge has real consequences for tourism and will have jobs impacts in the tourism industry, which employs a million Australians, is Australia's largest services export and has been nominated as one of Australia's five super growth sectors … Evidently the Prime Minister has no qualms now about further increasing the charge, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. At a time when we want to be doing everything we can to help and support our tourism, it is unfortunate that the government has chosen to increase the passenger movement charge. The passenger movement charge was last increased in 2017, and the coalition government legislated a five-year freeze on further increases. That freeze has now ended and, while the current $10 increase is consistent with the CPI over that time, I encourage the government to be cognisant of the impacts on Australia's tourism industry when considering any further increases to this charge. I'd also like to commend the important work of the men and women in the Australian Border Force in protecting our borders, which the passenger movement charge ultimately supports. The coalition will be supporting this bill without amendment. 12:18 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The increase to the passenger movement charge is one of several measures that the government announced in the 2023-24 budget as part of our economic and fiscal strategy to make the economy and the budget stronger, more resilient and more sustainable over the medium term. The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024 will amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to implement the government's announced budget measure to increase the passenger movement charge from $60 to $70, effective from 1 July this year. The increase of $10 to the passenger movement charge is broadly in line with the increase in inflation since the last time the charge was increased, in 2017. The additional revenue generated from this increase will help advance Australia's economic interest and will bolster the government's capacity to invest in the protection of our international border, including the government's recent investment in strengthening Australia's biosecurity system, as well as supporting the important and expanding work of the Australian Border Force. I thank senators for their contribution to this debate and commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 703 12:19 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 703

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023

Second Reading 703 12:20 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Albanese government has no tolerance for corruption of any kind, whether in the public sector or the private sector. Foreign bribery is corruption and an insidious problem across the world. It harms communities, impedes economic development and undermines the rule of law. The bill addresses longstanding key challenges with investigating and prosecuting cases of foreign bribery in Australia. I commend the bill to the Senate. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:26]
(The President—Senator Lines)

33 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. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 22 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 704 12:30 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 2042 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "3", substitute "4". (3) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act to be conducted as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 18 months starting on the day Part 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act commences. (2) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. Senator Pocock moved a second reading amendment that referred to the introduction of a DPA scheme, which is an important issue; however, it only went as far as saying it was worthy of consideration. I will be moving an amendment in the committee stage to formally, not just by way of a second reading amendment, amend the bill to ensure that a scheme is not just worthy of consideration but, indeed, adopted. The amendments that I have just moved, though—amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 2042—are in relation to a statutory review which the coalition has proposed as part of the bill. This is a very simple and sensible proposition. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, we support the provisions of the bill that the government has put forward. These are sensible changes to the law which adopt coalition policy from the previous parliament. But we acknowledge, of course, that best practice in this space evolves over time. That is why we have proposed a statutory review. It is a straightforward solution to ensure that the measures are working as intended and it demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that our corporate criminal laws are appropriately calibrated in a rapidly changing world. 12:32 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash, for that contribution. The government will be supporting amendments (1) and (3). Under the deferred prosecution agreement scheme proposed by the former government, companies engaged in serious corporate crime, including foreign bribery, would have been able to negotiate a fine, agree to a set of conditions and have their cases put on indefinite hold, subject to compliance with that agreement. The government will entertain the introduction of a deferred prosecution scheme only after the measures introduced by this bill have been implemented and given time to work. We do, however, support amending the bill to include a statutory review provision whereby the amendments made by this bill will be reviewed after 18 months. A review will ensure that the measures introduced and debated today can be assessed after an appropriate period and guarantee that companies engaged in serious criminal wrongdoing, like foreign bribery, feel the full force of the law. I thank senators from the Australian Greens and Senator Pocock as well, who have indicated that they will support the review mechanism. The bill, with these amendments, shows the government's commitment to tackling corruption and, in particular, ensuring that our laws are effective in detecting, investigating and prosecuting foreign bribery. 12:33 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales On behalf of the Greens, I indicate we support these two amendments—amendment (1) being a commencement provision and amendment (3) being the review of the operation of the bill's amendments. I was glad to hear in the government's contribution that the review of the operation of the amendments will also include consideration of deferred agreements. We supported Senator David Pocock's second reading amendment to the effect that a proper and prompt review of deferred prosecution agreements would be essential in looking at the efficacy of these amendments. We are grateful that the government is leaning into it. We would hope that the review would, as far as possible, have a public element and seek public submissions, but, in any event, we think a statutory review, which is tabled in the House, to see if what's promised is delivered is a very sensible step forward. Question agreed to. 12:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos (2) and (4) on sheet 2042 together: (2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (4) Page 13 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Deferred prosecution agreements Part 1 — Main amendments Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 1 Before section 1 Insert: Part 1 — Preliminary 2 Subsection 3(1) Insert: approving officer means a person appointed as an approving officer under section 17G. Commonwealth entity has the same meaning as in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. conduct has the same meaning as in the Criminal Code. deferred prosecution agreement means an agreement mentioned in subsection 17A(1). DPA (short for deferred prosecution agreement): see deferred prosecution agreement. secrecy provision means a provision that: (a) is a provision of a law of the Commonwealth (other than this Act); and (b) prohibits or regulates the use or disclosure of information. 3 Before section 5 Insert: Part 2 — Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 4 After paragraph 6(1)(fa) Insert: (fb) to negotiate, enter into, and administer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, deferred prosecution agreements; and 5 After subsection 9(6F) Insert: (6G) The Director may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, enter into a DPA and do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with negotiating, entering into, or administering, a DPA. 6 After subsection 11(2) Insert: (2A) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), directions or guidelines under that subsection may be given or furnished in relation to negotiating, entering into, or administering, deferred prosecution agreements. 7 Before section 18 Insert: Part 3 — Deferred prosecution agreement scheme 17A Entering into a DPA (1) The Director may, if the Director considers it appropriate to do so, enter into an agreement, on behalf of the Commonwealth, with a person (other than an individual) for an offence mentioned in section 17B that is specified in the agreement. (2) Criminal proceedings must not be instituted in a federal court or in a court of a State or Territory against the person in relation to an offence specified in the agreement if the agreement is approved under section 17D. (3) Subsection (2) does not apply if: (a) the Director is satisfied that there has been a material contravention of the agreement by the person; or (b) both of the following apply: (i) the person provided inaccurate, misleading or incomplete information to a Commonwealth entity in connection with the agreement; (ii) the person knew, or ought to have known that the information was inaccurate, misleading or incomplete. 17B Offences to which a DPA may relate (1) A DPA may be entered into in relation to an offence against a provision listed in the following table. (2) A DPA may be entered into in relation to: (a) an offence against section 11.1, 11.4 or 11.5 of the Criminal Code that relates to an offence mentioned in subsection (1) of this section; or (b) an offence prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph. (3) If a DPA is entered into in relation to an offence mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) (the primary offence), the DPA may also be entered into in relation to an offence (the secondary offence) to which all of the following apply: (a) the secondary offence is likely to arise out of the same course of conduct that constitutes, or may constitute, the primary offence; (b) the secondary offence has a maximum penalty that is less than the maximum penalty for the primary offence; (c) the Director is satisfied that it is appropriate to enter into the DPA in relation to the secondary offence. 17C Content of a DPA (1) A DPA entered into with a person must contain the following: (a) a statement of facts relating to each offence specified in the DPA; (b) the last day for which the DPA will be in force; (c) the requirements to be fulfilled by the person under the DPA; (d) the amount of financial penalty to be paid by the person to the Commonwealth; (e) the circumstances which constitute a material contravention of the DPA, including (but not limited to) the following circumstances: (i) the contravention of a term of the DPA that is specified in the DPA as a significant term; (ii) a pattern or sequence of contraventions of a term or terms of the DPA that, considered collectively, are significant; (f) that the person consents, in circumstances mentioned in subsection 17A(3), to the Director instituting a prosecution of the person on indictment for an offence specified in the DPA without the person having been examined or committed for trial. (2) A DPA entered into with a person may contain any of the following terms: (a) a term requiring the person to do any of the following: (i) to compensate victims of an offence specified in the DPA; (ii) to donate money to a charity or other third party; (iii) to consent to any relevant orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 being made in relation to an offence specified in the DPA; (iv) to implement a compliance program or policies; (v) to cooperate in any investigation or prosecution relating to a matter specified in the DPA; (vi) to pay reasonable costs incurred by a Commonwealth entity relating to negotiations for the DPA; (b) a term setting out the consequences of a failure by the person to comply with any of the terms of the DPA; (c) any other term that the Director considers appropriate. (3) A financial penalty for the purposes of paragraph (1)(d) must be of a severity that the Director considers appropriate having regard to all circumstances relating to the DPA, including: (a) the person's cooperation in negotiations for the DPA; and (b) the severity of the penalty that may be imposed by a court if the person was convicted of each offence specified in the DPA; and (c) the inclusion in the DPA of terms of a kind mentioned in subparagraph (2)(a)(i), (ii) or (iii). (4) Despite paragraph (1)(d), a DPA need not include a financial penalty if the Director is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances and it is not in the interests of justice to include such a penalty. 17D Approval of a DPA (1) After the person and the Director agree to the terms of the DPA, the Director must give the following to an approving officer: (a) the DPA; (b) a written statement that the Director is satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (2). (2) The Director must be satisfied of the following: (a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence specified in the DPA has been committed; (b) entering into the DPA is in the public interest. (3) The approving officer must review the DPA and decide to either: (a) approve the DPA; or (b) not approve the DPA. (4) The approving officer must approve the DPA if the approving officer is satisfied that: (a) the terms of the DPA are in the interests of justice; and (b) the terms of the DPA are fair, reasonable and proportionate. (5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), an approving officer must assume that the information set out in the DPA is true and correct. (6) The approving officer must give written notice of the decision to the person and the Director. (7) If the approving officer approves the DPA, the Director must, within 10 business days after the day notice of the decision is given, publish the DPA on the Office's website. (8) Despite subsection (7), the Director may do either of the following if the Director considers it appropriate to do so in the interests of justice: (a) publish a version of the DPA that does not disclose the name of the person or any other material the Director considers should not be disclosed; (b) not publish the DPA. (9) Without limiting subsection (8), the Director may publish a version of the DPA, or not publish the DPA, if the Director is satisfied that publishing the full version of the DPA may: (a) pose a threat to public safety; or (b) prejudice an ongoing investigation; or (c) prejudice the fair trial of a person; or (d) be contrary to an order of a court. (10) Subsection (8) does not prevent the Director publishing the DPA, or a version of the DPA, at a later time if the Director considers that it would be in the interests of justice to do so. 17E When a DPA is in force (1) A DPA is in force for the period beginning the day after notice of the approval of the DPA is given as mentioned in subsection 17D(6) and ending on the earliest of the following: (a) the day specified in the DPA for the purposes of paragraph 17C(1)(b); (b) if the Director is satisfied that there has been a material contravention of the agreement—the day the person is given notice of the initiation of criminal proceedings of a kind mentioned in subsection 17A(2). (2) However, if: (a) a person is given notice as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b); and (b) a court makes a declaration (however described) that there has not been a material contravention of the agreement; the agreement is taken not to be in force for the period between the day the person is given the notice and the day the court makes the declaration. (3) A variation to a DPA takes effect immediately after the day notice of the approval of the variation is given under subsection 17F(2). (4) To avoid doubt, a DPA ceasing to be in force does not affect the validity of anything done by the Director, or the person, in accordance with the terms of the DPA. 17F Varying a DPA (1) If the person and the Director agree to a variation to the DPA, the Director must give the DPA as varied to an approving officer. (2) The approving officer must review the DPA as varied and decide to either: (a) approve the variation; or (b) not approve the variation. (3) However, the approving officer must not approve the variation unless the approving officer is satisfied that: (a) the terms of the DPA as varied are in the interests of justice; and (b) the terms of the DPA as varied are fair, reasonable and proportionate. (4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), an approving officer must assume that the information set out in the DPA as varied is true and correct. (5) The approving officer must give written notice of the decision to the person and the Director. (6) If the approving officer approves the variation, the Director must, within 10 business days after the day notice of the decision is given, publish the DPA as varied on the Office's website. (7) Despite subsection (6), the Director may do either of the following if the Director considers it appropriate to do so in the interests of justice: (a) publish a version of the DPA as varied that does not disclose the name of the person or any other material that the Director considers should not be disclosed; (b) not publish the DPA as varied. (8) Without limiting subsection (7), the Director may publish a version of the DPA as varied, or not publish the DPA as varied, if the Director is satisfied that publishing the full version of the DPA may: (a) pose a threat to public safety; or (b) prejudice an ongoing investigation; or (c) prejudice the fair trial of a person; or (d) be contrary to an order of a court. (9) Subsection (7) does not prevent the Director publishing the DPA, as varied or a version of the DPA as varied, at a later time if the Director considers that it would be in the interests of justice to do so. 17G Appointment of approving officers (1) The Minister may, in writing, appoint a person as an approving officer for the purposes of this Part. (2) The Minister must not appoint a person as an approving officer unless the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the person is a former judicial officer of a federal court or a court of a State or Territory; and (b) the person has the knowledge or experience necessary to properly exercise the powers of an approving officer. (3) An approving officer holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years. (4) An approving officer is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Minister in writing. (5) A determination made under subsection (4) is not a legislative instrument. 17H Evidence Admissibility (1) In civil or criminal proceedings against a person (other than an individual) who is, or was, a party to a DPA, or negotiations for a DPA, none of the following are admissible in evidence against the person: (a) documents (other than the DPA itself) that indicate the person entered into negotiations for a DPA; (b) documents (other than the DPA itself) that were created solely for the purpose of negotiating a DPA. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the documents include the following: (a) any record indicating the person entered into negotiations for the DPA; (b) any record of negotiations for the DPA; (c) any draft of the DPA (including any draft statement of facts). (3) Subsection (1) does not apply in the following circumstances: (a) the circumstances mentioned in subsection 17A(3); (b) if the person has given evidence in another criminal proceeding or a civil proceeding that is inconsistent with the documents mentioned in subsection (1). (4) To avoid doubt, this section does not affect the admissibility in evidence of any information or document obtained as an indirect consequence of a disclosure of, or any information contained in, any document mentioned in subsection (1). Agreed facts (5) The statement of facts included in the DPA is taken to be agreed facts for the purposes of section 191 of the Evidence Act 1995 in any of the following: (a) criminal proceedings that are instituted in circumstances mentioned in subsection 17A(3); (b) proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 that are instituted after criminal proceedings mentioned in paragraph (a). 17J Destroying evidence (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) a book, document or thing is relevant to: (i) negotiating a DPA; or (ii) assessing compliance with a DPA; and (b) the person causes the book, document or thing to be prevented from being used in: (i) negotiating the DPA; or (ii) assessing compliance with the DPA; or (iii) evidence in criminal proceedings of a kind mentioned in subsection 17A(2) relating to the DPA. Penalty: (a) for an individual—imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both; or (b) for a body corporate—5,000 penalty units. (2) The fault element for paragraph (1)(b) is intention. 17K Disclosure of information (1) This section applies if: (a) a person is, or was, an official (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013) of a Commonwealth entity; and (b) the person obtains information of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) (including by a disclosure, or a series of disclosures, under this section). (2) The information is information (including personal information within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988) obtained as a direct result of the negotiating, entering into, or administering, of a DPA. (3) The person may disclose the information (including the personal information) to an authority described in an item of the following table, or an official of such an authority, for a purpose described in that item if: (a) the person believes on reasonable grounds that the disclosure will serve that purpose; and (b) a court has not made an order prohibiting the disclosure of the information to the authority for that purpose. (4) This section applies despite any other secrecy provision, whether enacted before, at or after the commencement of this section. 17L Disclosure and use of certain information (1) If a provision of a Commonwealth law authorises the disclosure of information to, or the use of information by, a person or authority in relation to a prosecution for an offence, the provision is taken to authorise the disclosure of the information to, or the use of the information by, the person or authority for the purposes of negotiating, entering into or administering a DPA in relation to that offence. (2) This section applies to a provision of a Commonwealth law whether the provision was enacted before, at or after the commencement of this section. Part 4 — Director, Associate Director and staff 8 Before section 31 Insert: Part 5 — Miscellaneous 9 Subsection 31(1) After "9(6D)", insert ", Part 3". 10 After subsection 31(1A) Insert: (1AAA) The Director may, by writing signed by him or her, delegate to a person who: (a) is a member of the staff of the Office; and (b) is an SES employee; and (c) is a legal practitioner; all or any of the Director's functions or powers under Part 3 (other than those under subsections 17B(3), 17C(4), 17D(8) and 17F(7)). 11 Application provision The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to conduct occurring before, on or after the commencement of this Part. Part 2 — Amendment commencing 6 months after date of Assent Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 12 Subsection 17B(1) (table item 5, column headed "Provisions") After "70.2,", insert "70.5A,". Part 3 — Consequential amendments to the tax law A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 13 After paragraph 69-5(3)(a) Insert: (aa) section 26-7 of the *ITAA 1997 (Deferred prosecution agreements); Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 14 Section 12-5 (after table item headed "debt interests") Insert: 15 After section 26-5 Insert: 26-7 Deferred prosecution agreement expenditure You cannot deduct under this Act a loss or outgoing incurred under a term of a deferred prosecution agreement that is in force under Part 3 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. 16 Application provision (1) The amendments made by this Part (other than item 13) apply in relation to the income year in which Part 1 of this Schedule commences and later income years. (2) The amendment made by item 13 of this Part applies in relation to the tax period in which Part 1 of this Schedule commences and later tax periods. Part 4 — Other consequential amendments Administration Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 17 After paragraph (xa) of Schedule 1 Insert: (xaa) decisions under Part 3 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983; Crimes Act 1914 18 After paragraph 16A(2)(fa) Insert: (fb) whether the person entered into a DPA (within the meaning of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983) in relation to the offence and the extent to which the person has complied, or failed to comply, with the terms of the DPA; 19 Application provision The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to conduct occurring before, on or after the commencement of this Part. Senator Pocock had brought forward a second reading amendment in relation to this particular issue, but, on this side of the chamber, we were not of the opinion that a DPA scheme in Australia is 'worthy of consideration'. We are actually of the opinion that this is an issue that should not be kicked down the road. Our amendment is not a second reading amendment. This is an amendment within the committee stage itself, so it does formally amend the bill. It would reinsert a deferred prosecution agreement scheme into the legislation. Why are we moving these amendments? It's because the evidence on this issue is impossible to ignore. When the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee looked at this particular version of the bill, they had the benefit of weighty submissions by entities with a respected track record in integrity issues. The committee heard from the Uniting Church Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Allens Linklaters, the Law Council of Australia and Transparency International Australia. The overwhelming position that has been put forward by these bodies is very, very clear. All of these bodies support a deferred prosecution agreement scheme. But it doesn't actually stop there. If you look at what Austrade said, Austrade itself was clear on its support for measures that incentivise self-reporting which, as we know, is exactly what a DPA scheme is intended to do. Of course the Senate has previously had the benefit of submissions from the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Federal Police again supporting a DPA scheme. The OECD Council—the entity that is responsible for overseeing the antibribery convention that we're trying to implement through this legislation—has also expressly recommended that members implement non-trial resolutions and in this case a deferred prosecution agreement scheme. It doesn't stop there. The Australian Institute of Company Directors has also been clear on their support for a deferred prosecution agreement scheme. In fact, when you actually look at the evidence in relation to whether or not this legislation should be amended to include a deferred prosecution agreement scheme, the evidence is nearly unanimous. I would have to say that that is actually quite a rare situation, but it's not hard to see why when you actually read through the justifications for implementing a deferred prosecution scheme. The arguments for a DPA scheme like the one we have proposed are rooted in evidence, as I said. International experience from partners like the US, the UK, France, Canada, Singapore, Brazil and other countries show that DPA schemes have been highly successful in enforcing corporate criminal laws. They can achieve the same justice outcomes as a successful conviction. They allow punitive requirement of justice to be satisfied. Prosecutors usually secure significant penalties, sometimes involving fines that actually amount to billions of dollars. They also serve, obviously, the corrective purpose. They provide a mechanism that can drive changes to corporate behaviour through measures like enhanced compliance and monitoring programs to ensure the offending cannot happen again. They can also be used to assist in crime prevention and deterrence, for example, by requiring the company to cooperate in prosecuting individuals who themselves have committed offences. In addition to the above, deferred prosecution agreements have a number of other benefits. They actually incentivise self-reporting, which is a good thing. You actually want people or companies to self-report corporate entities who would otherwise face the uncertainty of litigation and unknown quantum of penalties. They also lead to an increase in detection and prosecution of foreign bribery; I personally would have thought that that was a good thing. The evidence shows that, far from being a get-out-of-jail-free card, they increase prosecutions. They assist law enforcement by freeing up resources to focus on other crimes, noting the average foreign bribery case in the OECD takes over seven years to prosecute. It may involve millions of documents from multiple countries and has uncertain outcomes. Contrast that with the deferred prosecution agreement. Looking at where deferred prosecution agreements have indeed been successful, in 2017 Rolls-Royce agreed to pay 671 million pounds in global penalties across various jurisdictions for systematic bribery to secure major contracts and falsification of documents. In 2020 Airbus agreed to pay 3.6 billion euros in global penalties under DPAs in multiple different countries for engaging in bribery in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Taiwan and Ghana relating to corruption in the sale of aeroplanes. The scheme we are proposing by way of our amendments leverages the benefits I have just referred to. It was carefully put together by the Attorney-General's Department, working with the CDPP and the AFP, under the previous government. So the scheme we are putting forward is not something that has been dreamed up; it is something the Attorney-General's Department themselves put forward as the scheme that should be in place under this legislation, when we were in government. It also, importantly, includes safeguards. Under our amendments, both the Director of Public Prosecutions and an independent former judge, the approving officer, must be satisfied that the terms of a DPA are in the interests of justice and are fair, reasonable and proportionate. The DPA must also be satisfied it is in the public interest to enter into the DPA itself. Importantly—and this is a transparency measure—any deferred prosecution agreement must be published unless doing so would pose a threat to public safety, prejudice an ongoing investigation or fair trial or contravene a court order. The combination of external oversight and public transparency is intended to support public confidence in the proposed scheme. In light of these sorts of measures, the implacable refusal by the Attorney-General of Australia and the Albanese government to even consider the scheme, quite frankly, just doesn't make sense—given, as I said, the Attorney-General's Department, when we were in government, were the ones that worked with the CDPP and with the AFP and were the ones that put the scheme together. Arguments that Australia is somehow just not ready for a deferred prosecution agreement scheme do not stand up to scrutiny, in particular given the overwhelming weight of the evidence and, as I said, the evidence from so many bodies, which is highly unusual within itself. These are sensible, widely supported amendments that will benefit the Australian public, and I would hope that the government, and perhaps even the Australian Greens, in the time we have before we vote on the amendments are able to give them some further consideration. Can I just ask the minister this. Deferred prosecution agreement schemes are used effectively in comparable jurisdictions such as the UK, the US, Canada, France and Singapore, and there is considerable evidence highlighting their utility in the context of identified foreign bribery conduct. Why should Australia lag behind its overseas peers? 12:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash. We've made our position clear, as I outlined in my contribution in committee before. When ordinary Australians commit crimes they feel the full force of the law. However, under the deferred prosecution agreement scheme proposed by the former government, companies that engaged in serious corporate crime, including foreign bribery, would have been able to negotiate a fine, agree to a set of conditions and have their cases put on indefinite hold. The introduction of a DPA scheme should only be entertained after the measures in this bill have been enacted and given time to work, which is why we supported the original amendments. There is universal agreement that the existing foreign bribery offences in the Criminal Code are grossly inadequate, and the government is of the view that the reforms in this bill further enhance Australia's implementation of its obligations under the OECD antibribery convention. Whilst a DPA scheme could encourage companies to self-report foreign bribery, there are existing mechanisms where a country can self-report conduct involving a suspected breach of division 70 of the Criminal Code. The Australian Federal Police website has guidance on self-reporting. 12:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Effectively, the answer from the minister is that Australia will just lag behind its overseas peers, because that answer did not address the fact that in comparable jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, the US, Canada, France and Singapore, they effectively use deferred prosecution agreement schemes. In particular, as I said, they assist law enforcement by freeing resources to focus on other crimes, noting that—and this is the important part—the average foreign bribery case in the OECD takes over seven years to prosecute. It involves many millions of documents, which you've got to work through, and multiple countries, but it also has uncertain outcomes. When you have the deferred prosecution agreement scheme, you suddenly go from seven years down to getting an outcome. In relation to that success, 671 million pounds in global penalties was paid by Rolls-Royce in 2017. That was a successful DPA scheme. In 2020, Airbus paid 3.6 billion euro in global penalties in multiple different countries. The answer given by the minister does not stack up to the evidence that is actually on the record and, in particular, to the fact that they are already utilised in comparable jurisdictions, and they are getting outcomes. But Australia can just lag behind, and, perhaps later on down the track, we may or may not have a look at a deferred prosecution scheme. In the context of the failure to prevent offence and the bill's broad definition of an associate, which includes subsidiaries and contractors, a DPA scheme would provide an opportunity for a corporation to self-report in circumstances where it detects foreign bribery conduct by one of its associates. However, self-reporting would not compel the DPP to offer a DPA. It would remain entirely at the DPP's discretion and could be pursued in parallel to a criminal investigation. Given this, why is the government opposed to a measure such as a DPA that could help combat foreign bribery? 12:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Whilst a DPA scheme could encourage companies to self-report foreign bribery, there are existing mechanisms where a company can self-report conduct involving a suspected breach of division 70 of the Criminal Code. The Australian Federal Police website has guidance on self-reporting. 12:48 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I'll indicate, on behalf of the Greens, that we won't be supporting these coalition amendments. We did support the second reading amendment, which indicated our preference for Australia to rapidly adopt a deferred prosecution agreement scheme but to do so after some rigorous review. The amendments that have been brought forward by the coalition, on face value, cover the bulk of the necessary elements for a successful deferred prosecution agreement scheme, but we haven't had the benefit of a thorough consideration of whether or not the offences that are covered by a DPA scheme, which are set out in proposed 17B, are the appropriate set of offences. On one view, they are too narrow. We've heard that from some stakeholders. Another view we've heard from stakeholders is that they're too broad. So we encourage the government to use the statutory review as a way of rapidly and promptly considering this and doing it with due process. I do hear Senator Cash's urging of alacrity on the government, saying: 'You should act now. You've waited too long.' I will share with the Senate a media release from Norton Rose Fulbright, one of the large global law firms. It says: The Minister for Justice … has announced that the Australian Coalition Government will today introduce new laws to establish a Deferred Prosecution Agreement as part of a raft of new reforms to Australia's anti-bribery and corruption regime. The introduction of these reforms comes ahead of International Anti-Corruption Day on Saturday and have been announced despite the Senate Economic References Committee being given a further extension to publish its report on the foreign bribery inquiry by 7 February 2018 rather than by 7 December 2017 … That media release is dated 6 December 2017. So what happened? What happened for five years under the coalition from 2017, when that was introduced? The coalition has been a little bit 'St Augustine' here: 'Oh Lord, give me a deferred prosecution scheme, but just not yet.' So let's get a little bit of historical perspective on some of this political debate. Hopefully, we all want to achieve a successful deferred prosecution scheme. Hopefully, we can use the statutory review to do it, and, hopefully, we can do it in less than seven years. 12:51 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Minister, you referred to the fact that there are ways in which companies can self-report. I note that there was a case that occurred last year where an agreement was entered into. It was reported by the Australian Federal Police that a company called Oxiana Ltd, which became part of the OZ Minerals Ltd group, had self-reported actions of foreign bribery in Cambodia, and an agreement had been entered into between that company and the Australian Federal Police. The guidelines for prosecutions were applied, and a total of $9.3 million was paid in both penalties and forfeitures under that agreement. So for all intents and purposes, that was a deferred prosecution agreement. But the difference is that it was made under guidelines which aren't part of the laws of Australia. Wouldn't it be better to have a deferred prosecution scheme made under a bill passed by this parliament, as opposed to agreements, as the agreement was made last year, under guidelines which have not been passed by this parliament? 12:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I've explained the government's position. 12:52 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Is the minister aware of the agreement that was entered into between the Australian Federal Police and OZ Minerals last year? 12:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I can recall seeing media attention about it at the time. 12:53 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Could the minister explain the difference in principle between the agreement that was entered into by the Australian Federal Police and Oxiana—and its successor corporate body, OZ Minerals—and what is proposed in a very well set out speech by my colleague Senator Cash explaining the logic behind deferred prosecution agreements? What is the difference between what was done last year and what is being proposed by the opposition here, except for the fact that what the opposition is proposing is that a scheme that has actually been passed by this parliament be adopted and implemented, as opposed to being implemented through guidelines? What is the difference? 12:53 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I have explained the government's position. Obviously, as Senator Shoebridge pointed out, you had years to do something about this in government and did nothing on it. You didn't even bring the legislation forward for debate. 12:53 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I note that this self-reporting actually occurred during the course of the coalition government. No doubt the investigative agencies of the Commonwealth government were engaging with OZ Minerals Ltd and its predecessor, Oxiana Ltd, with respect to this act of foreign bribery that was self-reported under the coalition government prior to the change in government. Again, can the minister explain the logic of enabling deferred prosecution agreements under guidelines which have not been legislated, which has occurred during the course of this government—an agreement made for a deferred prosecution under this government, during the term of this government, by the Australian federal police, an agency of this government—as opposed to supporting a legislated scheme where this parliament imposes and considers the process, and the process is done in accordance with an act of law as opposed to guidelines. Please explain the logic. 12:55 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Again, Senator Scarr, I've explained the government position with regard to deferred prosecution agreements. I'm sure that you'll have the opportunity to put in a submission when the review is undertaken, and I'd encourage you to do so. 12:55 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Given that an agency of the government is already entering into deferred prosecution agreements, in effect under guidelines as opposed to law, how many other such agreements does the government propose its agencies will enter into before the review takes place? Will any other of these arrangements occur before this review takes place, as was the one entered into by OZ Minerals Ltd and an agency of the Commonwealth government? What's the government's position with regard to how this area should be regulated and managed up to the point in time of the review? Will there be any other arrangements, such as the one entered into under this government last year? Will there be any other such arrangements entered into? 12:56 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That would be a matter for the law enforcement agencies, including the AFP. 12:56 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, stakeholders have raised with me the fact that clause 3 of the guidelines, which I think were signed off on 8 December 2017—that was two days after that media release that I spoke to earlier—provide that the AFP and the CDPP will review the operation of the guidelines within two years, or earlier in the event that a deferred prosecution agreement scheme commences. That's now 6½ years ago. Have the guidelines ever been reviewed? Were they reviewed by the former government at any point? Have they been reviewed by your government at any point? They were novel, they didn't go through any external scrutiny process and they've now actually been tested, so have they ever been reviewed? 12:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That would be a matter for the AFP. 12:57 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Regarding the comments that have been made about the former coalition government, let us be very clear: the coalition is the only party in this debate that has a consistent track record on this issue. The deferred prosecution scheme we proposed was reviewed by this Senate twice before and, despite the words of both the government and the Australian Greens, was actually opposed and delayed by Labor and the Greens. We didn't have the numbers in the Senate. Hello, people! We did not have the numbers in the Senate. Had you wished to work with us to implement this, this could have previously been done and set up. Seriously, a lot of posturing going on about why certain things may not have been done. Both of those parties, Australian Greens and Labor, opposed it when we put it forward when we were in government. In 2017, the Attorney-General's Department made a submission to a committee of this Senate about the proposal to introduce the same deferred prosecution agreement scheme we are currently proposing with this amendment. It said at the time, on why is a DPA scheme necessary, that law enforcement agencies face particular: … challenges … with detecting and addressing serious corporate— criminal offences. It said: The opaque and sophisticated nature of … corporate crime can make it difficult to identify and … easy to conceal. Investigations into corporate misconduct can be hampered by the need to process large amounts of complex data and … Evidence may be held overseas … Court proceedings can be long and expensive, particularly against well-resourced corporate defendants. It also said: The DPA scheme is designed to address these challenges by providing incentives to companies to self-report misconduct— as Senator Scarr has just referred to— and assist law enforcement in corporate criminal investigations and prosecutions. That was the Attorney-General's Department in 2017. Then we turn to 2020. The AFP made a similar submission to a committee of this Senate saying: The AFP supports amendments to establish a Deferred Prosecution Agreement … Scheme in Australia that allows the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions … to invite a corporation that has engaged in serious corporate crime to negotiate an agreement and comply with a range of mandatory and optional conditions. The sophisticated, and organised nature of corporate crime makes it difficult to detect, investigate and prosecute corporate criminal offending, due to mechanisms that conceal conduct. There is a lack of incentive for corporations to cooperate particularly as it relates to obtaining evidentiary material held by the corporation, out of reach from law enforcement. Establishing a DPA scheme will enhance the prospects of cooperation with law enforcement and is expected to lead to greater opportunities to self-report together with providing an additional method for Commonwealth agencies to remediate criminal conduct as it relates to corporate entities or legal persons in Australia. This has the potential to free up investigative resources for other serious offending and provide a mechanism for corporations to address criminal conduct orchestrated by employees without damage to reputation and financial activities that may result from protracted and costly formal court proceedings and conviction. Again, this is consistent with the Attorney-General's Department's statement, a submission to the Senate in 2017 and a similar submission by the AFP in 2020. These are unequivocal endorsements by the agencies responsible for investigating those offences. What has changed? 13:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As I've explained consistently on this, the government will entertain the introduction of a deferred prosecution scheme only after measures introduced in this bill have been implemented and given time to work. That's been consistent from us. I do note, again, that you had a period in government where you could have pursued this. You never actually did it, and you continue to delay it now. 13:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Labor recommendation 1.20 in 2020 says, 'Schedules 2 and 3 should be deleted from the bill,' and schedule 2 was actually the deferred prosecution agreement scheme. We didn't have the numbers, so I find those words a little disingenuous. The problem I have with the position of the government and the position of the Attorney-General is, as I have already stated, that we know that foreign bribery cases take years to prosecute. The figure that is usually quoted is about 7.3 years. Even if this bill passes this week, the commencement provisions mean it most likely won't fully come into force until, say, next year. Then, if we're generous and assume that the offences can be prosecuted in, say—I don't know—five years, as opposed to 7.3 years, then the soonest we would be able to know if these offences actually work is going to be in the 2030s, when you could accept an amendment which the body of evidence shows is already working well in other parts of the world in comparable jurisdictions. The Attorney-General's Department itself when we were in government supported it. The AFP supported it. The body of submitters to the inquiries over time have supported it. If we take the Attorney's words at face value, what Labor will have effectively voted for today is that they won't even entertain a DPA scheme until the 2030s. Guess what, Australia? You will continue to lag behind like-minded jurisdictions. In 2023 another government agency, Austrade, also backed in a scheme like a DPA scheme. It said: Whilst prosecution may be an instructive and inevitable consequence of a broadened interpretation of bribery of a foreign official, business could be encouraged to better engage and self-report, seek guidance and legal advice and find the resources to implement effective risk management of their risk of bribery, if given incentive to comply and co-operate. Do you agree with the advice from Austrade? 13:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I haven't seen that, Senator Cash, but I accept what you're putting there. In regard to the deferred prosecution agreement scheme, we've made our position clear in terms of how we think the government wants to proceed. That's why we've supported the amendments we have in this bill. 13:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Obviously we are back to 'this is the government's position' and, regardless of the weight of evidence and, in particular, as I said, the submissions that have been put forward over a period of time now in relation to the adoption by Australia of a deferred prosecution agreement scheme and the fact that like-minded jurisdictions are actually doing well and are actually getting results under a deferred prosecution agreement scheme, we literally have the government behaving like an ostrich with its head in the sand. In its submission to the Senate committee—just to ensure that we hear all of the evidence in relation to why we should have a deferred prosecution agreement scheme in Australia, if you're actually serious here about combatting foreign bribery—this is what the Uniting Church synod of Victoria and Tasmania said: The current Government's opposition to DPA schemes appears to rest on the mistaken belief that if DPAs are not offered, then all cases will proceed to prosecution. The reality is that in the absence of a DPA, many corporate crimes carried out by middle managers that would otherwise be self-reported to law enforcement agencies by the corporation itself will go— Here's the word— undetected. Those responsible will never go to trial. The experience of other jurisdictions is that a DPA scheme increases the detection of corporate crimes and results in more prosecutions of the individuals inside the corporation that engaged in criminal conduct. My question to the minister would've been: do you agree with what the Uniting Church has said—that, without a DPA scheme, many corporate crimes will never be prosecuted? But, obviously, I already know what the answer is: the government will not be proceeding with one. It's put its reasons on the record. In it submission to the committee on this bill, this is what Allens Linklaters said: Allens maintains its strong support for the introduction of a DPA scheme, in line with our earlier comments as well as— Lo and behold— international best practice. Let's not worry about that! We remain of the view that DPAs can provide an effective and efficient means of addressing corporate misconduct in suitable cases. They then go on, though, to make two additional points which are quite salient: DPA schemes have the potential to increase self-reporting by corporates, and therefore bolster enforcement efforts by the AFP and CDPP. As DPA schemes incentivise self-reporting, efficiency and cooperation, it is likely that the introduction of such a scheme in Australia would see an increase in self-reporting, and therefore assist in addressing the current difficulties and delays suffered by the AFP and CDPP in gathering information and evidence through mutual assistance programs. Personally, I would've thought that is actually a compelling reason to put in place a DPA scheme. They also say: DPA schemes have the potential to facilitate more expeditious resolutions of foreign bribery investigations and prosecutions. In our firsthand experience, major foreign bribery investigations can take five to ten years to resolve. The inherent uncertainty of outcomes inherent in contested criminal proceedings, and the risk proceeding to trial carriers for both a prosecuting agency and a corporate defendant is a major contributor to this. DPA schemes have the potential to create greater certainty of outcome for corporates, while ensuring appropriate penalties are still imposed. Again, though—ostrich, head in the sand—this government is not interested. In its submission to the committee on this bill, this is what Transparency International Australia said: The experience of the US and UK is that a DPA scheme increases detection and results in more prosecutions of foreign bribery and other criminal offences. This is Transparency International Australia. They are the people devoted to transparency, which I thought this government was allegedly meant to believe in. They, Transparency International Australia, have expressly recommended that a DPA scheme be introduced, yet the government is turning its back on the recommendation from Transparency International Australia. So much for transparency! In its submission to the committee on this bill, the Law Council—now, the Law Council, seriously, they actually do know what they're talking about—expressly recommended the adoption of a DPA scheme. It said: … the Law Council continues to support the adoption of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) scheme as a means of addressing corporate criminal activity that may avoid some of the cost, delay and uncertainty of traditional criminal prosecutions. When you look at the expert evidence received by the committee that looked at this bill, putting aside the other committees that have also looked into deferred prosecution agreements under the former coalition government, every single body that made a submission about this bill—bar one body, but they did not mention it—either supports or has supported a DPA scheme. What is the point of having the committee inquiry if the overwhelming body of evidence—all but one, who didn't mention it—says the government should implement a deferred prosecution scheme? It is a near-unanimous weight of evidence, yet what we have is a government that just says, 'We're not going to.' I am sure the Attorney is well aware—he would have to be, because officers read the submissions and the Attorney-General's Department would have told him—of the widespread support for DPA schemes across the legal profession and also civil society. The truth is that this government is opposing good, sensible policy because, let's face it, it came from the coalition. Last time we were in government they didn't like it either. Now the government, particularly in relation to the body of stakeholders that put forward the evidence, is in the embarrassing position of having to explain to the Australian people why—because this is all about the Australian people and making sure they get back what they are entitled to—they can't enjoy the benefits of a policy that leads to an increase in prosecutions and better outcomes in fighting corporate crime. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about better outcomes in fighting corporate crime. The sad reality—and this will shortly go to a vote—is that the Australian people are in that position because the Australian Labor Party, particularly this Attorney-General, have put the political tactics of the Labor Party ahead of the interests of the Australian people. That is quite sad. 13:12 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales We've got the rewriting of history from the coalition about why their bills were never brought on to a vote. The Greens were never tested on it and were always engaged in the deferred prosecution scheme, always engaged in the issue. A little lesson going forward: if you want to find out how parties will vote in the Senate, bring your bills on for a vote. The coalition never did. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that opposition amendments (2) and (4) on sheet 2042, moved by leave together by Senator Cash, be agreed to

The committee divided. [13:17]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

25 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading 718 13:20 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 718

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023

Second Reading 718 13:21 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to make changes to the purpose, governance, oversight and budgetary arrangements for the Australian Research Council. These changes follow an independent review commissioned by the Albanese government in 2022 and its final report, Trusting Australia's ability: review of the Australian Research Council Act 2001. It's certainly clear that Australians cannot trust this government, including in relation to research. We saw a shocking decision by this government, as revealed in the last MYEFO statement, when it cut $102 million to university research. For this government to be standing up and spruiking its track record on university research when it, under the cover of darkness, has axed two research programs delivered by the coalition is absolutely disgraceful. I think that this government has a lot to answer for. Of course, we all know that the Labor Party, before the last election, went to the people of Australia promising to lift investment in research to three per cent of GDP. At the moment, it's about 1.7 per cent or a little bit more than that. Since the election, we've heard absolutely nothing about that commitment as well. This government stands up and talks about its track record with research when it has slashed $46.2 million from the Australia's Economic Accelerator program, which is a very important program. It's part of several billion dollars of investment in the university sector by the former coalition government to ensure that great ideas are commercialised and that research does not sit in the bottom drawer. It is appalling that the minute this government had its first chance it slashed that program. It also cut $56.3 million by cancelling the Regional Research Collaboration Program, a really important program to support research collaboration in the regions. It's just one more example of the way in which this government has turned its back on the regions. So the government is starting this debate on the back foot, and I have to say that this bill, regrettably, puts forward amendments which also undermine the ability of the minister, no matter who the minister is, to do his or her job. That's because the bill establishes the ARC board, which will be responsible for providing advice to the minister on grant guidelines for all national competitive grants programs, rather than the Minister for Education. So what this bill does is remove ministerial discretion, except on security, defence and international relations grounds. This will mean that, as to grants for discovery projects, linkage projects and fellowship projects, which account for a large part of the ARC's expenditure, the minister will have no discretion. This is an enormous amount of money we are talking about. In 2022-23, total expenditure was some $895 million. The reason the coalition is so concerned about removing ministerial discretion is that the buck stops with the minister and with the government. It's a really important part of our system of responsible government, of parliamentary democracy. Outsourcing these decisions to an unaccountable board is a very, very dangerous step forward. The government, to make things worse, is saying—as Minister Clare said in his speech the other night at the Universities Australia Gala Dinner—that the government is taking the politics and the politicians out of ARC decisions. Well, that, in fact, is not true. While ministerial discretion is being removed for a large number of grants, the minister is retaining his ability to approve grants for other designated research programs, including Australian Research Council centres of excellence, grants approved under the industrial transformation training centres and grants approved under the industrial transformation research hubs. So this is absolute gross hypocrisy from this government, because this government has not removed the ability for the minister to step in and make decisions—and that is appropriate, because we know that, in years gone by, a very small number of ARC projects rightly needed to be overturned by the minister. It was a very, very small number of projects. In fact, when in government, coalition education ministers intervened in very few projects; in fact, just 32 projects have been rejected since 2005. It is important that this ability is retained with the minister. We saw an example of improper expenditure, which we highlighted in the last estimates. The Department of Education was holding meetings in high-end restaurants—spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money meeting in restaurants, which is an absolute disgrace! Through the hard work of the opposition, we shamed this government into changing its hospitality policy so that there is now, appropriately, a cap on expenditure and so we can no longer see this gross waste of taxpayers' money. What this bill's proposal means is that, as to an ARC research project—which might include $250,000 of travel to Europe, for no rhyme or reason, or tens of thousands of dollars built into a research project in relation to hospitality—the government and the responsible minister would have no ability to step in and say, 'That's not appropriate.' I am not suggesting that the vast bulk of ARC research projects do not have merit but, where there is inappropriate expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, it is critical that the government remains accountable. If this board goes on a frolic of its own and starts irresponsibly approving improper expenditure, which is not just— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Senator Henderson, you will be in continuation when debate on this bill resumes. I will now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 719 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Tertiary Education 719 13:30 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Universities Accord report and the National School Reform Agreement make it clear that more needs to be done to help students from our regions finish school and consider studying at university or TAFE. All students, regardless of whether they live in our cities, regional centres or remote communities, deserve an equal opportunity to attain a quality education. Last week I had the privilege of attending Biddeston State School's leadership badge ceremony. Biddeston is a small town about half an hour past Toowoomba. It has a population of around 260 people and, as is often the case in small towns like this, the local school is the vibrant centre of the community. I'd like to thank Principal Doogan for inviting me to present some of the students with their leadership badges, and I'd like to offer my congratulations again to Olivia, Denvah, Chloe, Harrison, Tenzyn, Nate and Stella, who I'm confident will make excellent school leaders. I also congratulate Ian and Mel, who received lifetime membership to the schools PNF for their contributions to the school. Following the assembly I spoke with parents and staff about how much they value their school and the role it plays in boosting community spirit in Biddeston. But many of the parents also spoke about the issues their families face when their children reach high-school age and the tough choices parents face about where their children should attend high school. Today almost half of young people in their 20s and 30s in our cities have a uni degree, but not in regional towns like Biddeston. Our plan is to bridge the educational divide. We need to reach agreements with the states about reaching full and fair funding for our schools. We've already seen, as part of the Universities Accord report, 20 extra regional university study hubs that will make a difference to access to higher education. Meaningful change will take time, but we're committed to ensuring that every Australian student has the best possible education. Dunkley By-Election 719 13:32 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to speak on the important opportunity for voters in Dunkley this Saturday. This weekend's by-election is a crucial opportunity to elect a true community champion, three-time Frankston mayor, Nathan Conroy, who has an unrivalled track record in delivering for his community. Nathan grew up in social housing in Ireland. His young mum raised three children, juggled three jobs and studied by night before starting a childcare company. It is through her that Nathan learned the values of hard work and resilience. He came to Australia as a 19-year-old. He met his wife, Steffie, who grew up in Carrum Downs, where they moved six years ago before moving to Frankston South. As Mayor of Frankston, Nathan has delivered more infrastructure, better services and greater financial accountability. The by-election is also a critical opportunity to send this hopeless and incompetent Albanese Labor government a message. We have had enough, Australians have had enough and the people of Dunkley have had enough. Send Labor a message that it needs to do better on tackling inflation, interest rates, the crippling cost of living and sky-high increases in the price of groceries, electricity, gas and petrol. As I raised in question time yesterday, even Labor is telling its own focus groups about the concerns of the people of Dunkley: 'Our grocery bills are getting more expensive.' 'Prime Minister Albanese is not doing anything about petrol prices.' He's wasted a year talking about his Voice referendum and spending time overseas.' 'Rents are going up.' This Saturday the voters of Dunkley have a real opportunity. Vote 1: Nathan Conroy, Liberal for Dunkley. Gladstone Hospital 720 13:34 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Today I rise to speak on behalf of the people of Gladstone around the utter inadequacy of the Queensland health system in our town. Gladstone Hospital is overrun, underfunded and in desperate need of an ICU. The people of Gladstone are sick and tired of being treated as second-class citizens, and Labor must answer for its continued inaction on this issue. One community member who has reached out to my team and I is Nerinda. She has been waiting for an appointment with an ear, nose and throat specialist for over 10 months. There are no travelling doctors able to provide that service in Gladstone or Rockhampton, and she has now been hospitalised multiple times because she can't get adequate care. Asheleigh has also spoken to my team. She was in a major car accident. She was flown to Rocky because the ICU in Gladstone has been closed for over 20 years. Yet she has been discharged from hospital after only seven days and is still in need of major care. Gladstone is a major industrial hub, and we produce billions of dollars for the Australian economy. Its insufficient health care is not only unjust; it puts my community at risk, given the threat of a catastrophic industrial accident. The people of Gladstone deserve to be treated with dignity at a time when they are at their most vulnerable and in need of care where they live. They deserve an ICU at their hospital, and the Greens and I will continue to fight alongside the community until we get one. Small Business 720 13:36 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia It's the private sector and small business, not government, that is the biggest employer of Australians. Australian small businesses employ more than one million people and add $500 billion to the national GDP. Most small businesses have a turnover of less than $2 million, and casuals and women are significant participants in small business. In fact, there's a one-in-three chance that the small business you get your product or service from is run by a woman. As a former small-business operator who took the initiative to start a small business some 25 years ago, I know that. Personal experience goes a long way to having credibility to speak on matters in this place, and I've backed it up with experience in small and big business and with relevant professional and academic qualifications. I know firsthand the responsibility that comes with being an employer of people, and the importance of reducing red tape and reducing government interference. Evidence suggests it will be women who will be affected by this Labor government's policies that contradict those things. I will be following closely the Labor government's so-called 3,000 real jobs, with 'proper wages and decent conditions' for remote Indigenous communities. It's a $700 million commitment, and, yet again, it's light on detail. I refer to Aboriginal businesses in my home state of South Australia going gangbusters: Intract Indigenous Contractors has 100 Aboriginal employees and a new $100 million mining contract; Walga Mining, in Whyalla, is led by a female CEO who's local; and Wiltja Constructions is a general builder and repairs and maintenance provider with, again, a woman at the helm. They are profitable businesses and respected leaders delivering real results and real jobs. They are the provider of real jobs. Labor and the Australian Greens would do well to support their efforts and get out of their way. Victoria: Firefighting Volunteers 720 13:38 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I rise in recognition of our hardworking volunteer firefighters who continue to battle the bushfires currently taking place in my home state of Victoria. I know I speak on behalf of all Victorians and everyone in the chamber when I say 'thank you', as I take a few moments to acknowledge their tireless efforts. I'm talking about those courageous men and women who freely give up their time to respond to fire and other emergencies in Victoria. Firefighting presents significant hazards—injury, poor visibility and sudden wind changes. The role is very demanding both physically and emotionally. Even after the bushfire season the volunteers are on hand to assist, providing training and raising important funds for their local community and local fire stations. Volunteering is one of the best ways one can find real purpose in society. It builds the cultural and social fabric of many local towns, and there's no greater satisfaction than helping those in your own community. Victorians know that, when disaster strikes, our brave emergency volunteers are on the front line ready to lend a hand. There is no doubt the efforts of our emergency services volunteers will inspire many other people to contribute to other causes they feel strongly about. In recent weeks, several communities in the Wimmera region of western Victoria have faced extreme fire conditions. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to our volunteers for their camaraderie, for their bravery and for bringing out the best in our community. Thanks to all our volunteer firefighters in the Country Fire Authority, including the Victorian State Emergency Service and the Forest Fire Management Victoria, for their enormous contribution to our great state. Parliamentary Sittings 721 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania When this government was elected it said that parliament would be different, that parliament would be more respectful and more family friendly. Apparently, and I am quoting from the minister's press release: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the team are determined not to waste this opportunity for our nation. I don't think the team and the PM are that determined to make this place family friendly. There are opportunities being wasted all over the shop—for example, in the 2024 parliamentary calendar, all of the school holidays for every other state are listed on in the margins except for Tasmania. Tassie apparently has holidays only in January and December! Were mid-year Tasmanian school holidays not even considered? We are used to being left off the map, but we do expect better from our government. How family friendly is it to be making staff fly home on Good Friday? Yeah, that's right: according to the sitting calendar, we are sitting on Easter Thursday, which means that everyone in this place who doesn't live in Sydney, Melbourne or a nearby capital city will have to fly home on Good Friday. How's that for family friendly? While we're on travel, the allowance for parliamentary travel has not kept up with the cost of living. This means that a lot of our staffers in here who keep all of us going are out of pocket after they travel. Not only are they expected to work these punishing hours—and that's exactly what they are expected to do—and often on weekends, but they are also expected to pay their own out-of-pocket expenses on the shortfall for travel. This is how bad it is getting up here. This is from a government who says it cancelled a week of sittings this year because it was worried about the impact on staff. What a load of rubbish! Whose staff were you talking about? You sure as hell were not speaking about crossbench staff—I can tell you that much right now. You took staff off us, you bloody lifted some of your own over there, and you put an even harder impact on them. I'm telling you, this needs to be reviewed. I'm sick of my staff being done over. It is so unfair. Aged Care 721 13:42 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia It has now been 60 days since the Albanese government missed their own deadline to release their aged-care sustainability taskforce report. This important report will inform the ongoing financial structure of the aged-care sector in our country and whether Australians will be expected to pay more for their care. This is a conversation that we have been saying needs to be had with the Australian public, with older Australians and their families. We know that Labor is hiding the report in the lead-up to the Dunkley by-election, and we know the government doesn't ever hide good news. In fact, Labor has voted twice in this chamber this week against releasing this important report before Saturday. I have no doubt that next sitting week, post the by-election, they might have a very different reaction had I put my request to them then. It is totally indefensible that this Labor government is delaying significant health decisions until after the Dunkley by-election. Estimates this year confirmed that the government was provided with the report in December—before Christmas. This government has a proven track record that is about as transparent as a brick wall, and now it's keeping older Australians and their families purposefully in the dark about this very important reform. Anthony Albanese needs to prioritise people over his own politics. He must stand up and be honest with the Australian public, with older Australians and with their families, and—first and foremost this week—with the people of Dunkley whom he expects to vote on Saturday. Tell them the truth so that they can make the decision in full knowledge of all of the facts about the intentions of his government for cost-of-living pressures that he may well be going to put onto them next week. Tell them this week so that they can vote you out of government. Childhood Literacy: Toast for Kids Charity 722 13:44 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania The Toast for Kids Charity is a Tasmanian based organisation whose stated aim is to 'break the cycle of poverty, poor health, social exclusion, and helplessness, through and by supporting emergency food relief, food security, and education'. I met recently with Toast for Kids Charity president Steve Martin, whom many in this place would recognise as a former senator, and we discussed the charity's latest campaign. The Read Aloud to Your Child Every Day campaign is being run in partnership with the Children's Book Council of Australia and encourages parents and caregivers to read regularly to their children. One of their initiatives is to provide free copies of the children's book Tassie Rhymes for Little Tigers by Narelda Joy to Tasmanian parents of newborn babies. The 'read aloud' message is important. We know that reading aloud to children has multiple benefits, including developing literacy and language skills, assisting cognitive development and strengthening relationships. As an early childhood educator, I saw benefits of that firsthand. By reading aloud to their children every day, not only will parents and caregivers discover the benefits of reading, but also the joy of it. I certainly enjoyed reading to my now adult children while they were growing up, and now I read to my grandchildren. Toast for Kids has been promoting the campaign across Tasmania through libraries, Neighbourhood Houses and child and family-learning centres. They've been gaining support from elected representatives at all levels of government and across the political spectrum, as well as the Governor of Tasmania, Her Excellency Barbara Baker AC, and Tasmania's 26TEN Adult Literacy Network. It's an important message, and Toast for Kids aspires for it to reach a national audience. I congratulate Toast for Kids on this great campaign, and I encourage everyone in this place to support it. Albanese Government 722 13:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Today the Albanese government sent even more Australian troops to the Red Sea as part of a US bombing campaign on Yemen. Make no mistake, Australia has once again followed the US into another war—just like with Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. And if you wanted more proof of how the Albanese government, by signing up to the AUKUS deal, signed away any last shreds of an independent foreign policy, then this is it. When the bombing started in Yemen, supported by Australia, it wasn't defence minister Marles, foreign minister Wong or Prime Minister Albanese who let us know; it was the US Department of State. The US announced that Australia was at war. No-one from this government even spoke about it until hours later. These attacks follow a decade-long war in Yemen, one that has killed at 370,000 people, with 60 per cent of those deaths due to the lack of health care and food and 70 per cent being kids under the age of five. This entire conflict, with all the death and destruction, was fully backed in by the US—and, of course, Australia. It's a deep shame that, as with so many other conflicts, Australia fuelled this violence, providing vast amounts of military equipment to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates during the war, despite the notorious human rights abuses that they committed. Now we're sending more troops and more support for the bombing of a country we already helped set on fire. The next time anyone from the Albanese government talks about a rules based international order, think about who wrote those rules and why. The public doesn't want to be bombing another country. Most Australians want their country to be a force for peace. But this isn't about what the Australian public wants. It's about what Washington wants, and for Labor that's always the trump card. Worldview Foundation 722 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak about Worldview Foundation, a local charity whose mission is to create strong futures for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Indigenous people in Canberra are almost 25 times more likely to be sent to prison than non-Indigenous Canberrans. Our Indigenous recidivism rate is the highest in the country at over 90 per cent. As Canberrans we should be ashamed of these statistics. Not being okay with watching on and doing nothing, the team behind Worldview Foundation decided to step in. They started out in 2018 by offering programs to young First Nations people coming out of the justice system, offering them employment and helping keep them out of prison. Then they realised they need to reach people before they made contact with the justice system. Now they work mostly with First Nation boys in their late teens and early 20s by bringing them into a community focused on what's best for them, providing healthy meals, healthy relationships with mentors and a healthy work environment, where they recycle e-waste from across Canberra. I was inspired by my visit to their facility in Hume a few weeks ago. I heard firsthand stories of how these young people's lives have been positively impacted by the team at Worldview Foundation. Governments at all levels should be doing everything they can to get behind these kinds of organisations and the people who run them. They are stepping up to make a difference in an area where governments are dragging their feet. They are bringing passion and commitment and a huge amount of time and putting that into the next generation to ensure that people aren't going into a life in prison. Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month 723 13:50 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Today is the last day of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, a month that is incredibly important to many Australians and is led by Ovarian Cancer Australia. Ovarian cancer is Australia's deadliest female cancer, with over 1,500 Australian women diagnosed each year. Sadly, despite all the work in recent years, it still has a five-year survival rate of only 49 per cent, and, tragically, more than 1,000 Australian women die each year. Currently there is no definitive screening program. Symptoms are often confused with other health conditions, which results in advanced-disease diagnosis, making it even harder to treat. Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month sees the wearing of teal ribbons, and the teal colour has been the inspiration for the Morning Teal events that are held across Australia. These events and this month have particular significance to me. I hold a Morning Teal each year in recognition of the efforts of my predecessor in this Senate, the late Senator Jeannie Ferris, who died in office of ovarian cancer. Jeannie was a determined advocate for ovarian cancer awareness and made a great contribution to this cause through the Senate inquiry work and advocacy work that she did before passing away. The annual event I conduct is a way to honour Jeannie's legacy, while supporting the critical ongoing work of many women and their families affected by this terrible disease as well as the enormous efforts made by Ovarian Cancer Australia and their supporters. On 16 February, with the support of the Adelaide University, I held my own Morning Teal at the university in their magnificent medical school. Members of the community along with students from different schools attended. We heard the resilient and amazing story of Renata Potoczky's battle with ovarian cancer. Like many survivors, she steps forward to support this event, as do the family members of those who tragically have not survived. We also heard from Adelaide University research fellow Dr Carmela Ricciardelli, who detailed her inspirational work in new approaches for early diagnosis and treatment of advanced stage and chemotherapy-resistant ovarian cancer. I pay tribute to all those in this work. Migration 723 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Albanese government is consciously making houses and rents more expensive. An immigration flood is worsening the housing crisis. New figures show that, instead of slowing down immigration as promised, the government has stepped on the accelerator. In the 2022-23 financial year, 737,000 people arrived in Australia, leading to record net overseas immigration of 518,000. That's a shocking 64 per cent higher than Australia's previous record and more than double the average of the years immediately before COVID. The government promised we had hit peak immigration and announced a crackdown on criminal migration abusers. Despite the promises, AMP economist Shane Oliver has shown that net arrivals into Australia through to December 2023 remained very high. This suggests population growth may have accelerated even further in the six months after the record-breaking year of 518,000 net overseas arrivals. If this immigration acceleration is true, it's an unbelievable attack on every Australian who's struggling to buy a house or find an affordable rental. The housing and rental crisis in Australia is a dumpster fire. The Albanese government is pouring petrol on that fire and making it far worse while deceitfully claiming to help. There are 2.8 million temporary visa holders, putting huge demand pressure on houses, rentals and holiday accommodation. Very simply, Australia does not have the resources to support this many arrivals. We do not have enough rental properties. We do not have enough roads and public transport. We do not have enough hospitals and doctors to take care of the people already here. In these circumstances, letting in record levels of arrivals is an act of harm against the people of Australia, including against immigrants already here. Only One Nation will cut immigration to zero net. Zero net means that each year the number of people allowed in matches the number of people who leave so that we can fix the housing crisis and let our essential services catch up. Only One Nation applies common sense to work in the interests of the people. Gender Equality 723 13:54 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia This week's Workplace Gender Equality Agency wages data shows that Australian women earn on average about 20 per cent less than men in companies with more than 100 staff. Professional services and banking recorded some of the worst gaps, and some very big consulting firms, including some who advise others on diversity, had amongst the worst gaps. McKinsey had an incredible gap of 38 per cent. Boston Consulting had a gap of 35 per cent, and Bain had 31 per cent. Partners in the big four consulting firms—EY, Deloitte, KPMG and PwC—who earn very large incomes, are mostly men, and, as partners not employees, guess what? They're excluded from the big four pay-gap calculations. So the below-average gaps that the big four report include only the salaries of the underlings who do all the heavy lifting in these firms while earning much lower salaries. Again, guess what? More than half of them are women. This means we don't have the full picture on pay equity in the big consulting firms. One thing's for sure, however: these very big firms with wide gender pay gaps should not be doing government business or receiving government contracts. I want to have a word on part-time work. Senator Canavan implied this week that gender pay equity for part-time workers was a bridge too far. He asked, 'In what world are there lots of part-time CEOs?' Well, in our world, Senator. The most senior leadership jobs on the boards in big corporations across our economy are part-time jobs. It's all about the design of employment, and directors of big companies are part-time leaders. Most Australian women—including most women CEOs and plenty of senators in this place—have worked, for some portion of their working life, part time, combining care for others with their jobs. We're lucky they do that work, Senator Canavan, and we must make sure that, as part-time workers, they are not punished in their pay packets for combining work with their care for the rest of us. They deserve pay equity, and so do those who work in the big consulting firms. Ukraine 724 13:56 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to commemorate the recent second anniversary of the illegal invasion by Russia of Ukraine. I don't know how many people here yesterday heard the Ukrainian ambassador, Vasyl Myroshnychenko, and the co-chair of the Federation of Ukrainian Organisations, Kateryna Argyrou, speak at the National Press Club yesterday. No-one who was there or who heard those speeches could be unmoved by what they said. What they said was about the clear damage to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian economy that's going on. What they talked about was the damage being done to lives each and every day that this war goes on and on. They spoke about the daily connection from Australia to the troops on the frontline—including the 80th Air Assault Brigade, who I met with when I was in Donetsk. What they said yesterday was a call to action to Australia, to the Australian government, a call that we need to do more, that not just our partners in the EU, not just NATO partners, not just the US and Canada, but Australia and all these other countries have to contribute more to the war effort in Ukraine. You can't fight a battle of attrition without howitzer shells. You can't fight trench to trench without bullets. You can't win a war without the ammunition and capabilities that you need. Mark my words: this war must be won. Otherwise, we, as freedom-loving democracies, will have let down one of our own and let autocratic rule run all over us. Alice Springs 724 13:58 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory A lot is happening in Alice Springs. I want to thank the residents of Alice Springs who've been involved with a number of events that are taking place. Most recently, the 31st Imparja Cup was held from 17 to 21 February 2024, with divisions in major centres, men's community and women's community, and, this year, the introduction of the schools division, which brought together 40 talented juniors aged from 11 to 13 from four of our schools in Alice Springs. This created great excitement for the schoolchildren there. The Imparja Cup comprised over 300 Indigenous players from the Territory, starting with a friendly game between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. It began in 1993 and is now the largest cricket carnival in Australia. I'll just share with the Senate that fabALICE is on in March. It's a unique showcase of drag, family and cabaret events celebrating the inclusivity and diversity of the Red Centre. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the well-known movie The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, so, if you want to celebrate that anniversary, join Alice Springs for fabALICE. Senator Scarr 282997 Where's the bus? Senator McCARTHY 122087 There'll be the bus. There will be a Priscilla hub bar. There will be a Budget Barbie Camper Town Tour and dress-up. So, Senator Scarr, you're more than welcome to come to Central Australia in March. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 724 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Immigration Detention 724 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. A short while ago the Herald Sun reported that a man released by this government following the NZYQ case was arrested for serious sexual offences. According to Victoria Police, a woman was allegedly assaulted and another woman allegedly stalked. Victoria Police also said, 'Victoria Police can confirm the man is one of the detainees recently released following a High Court ruling.' The Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs are both from Melbourne. How did this happen on your government's watch? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Cash for the question. I will remind the Senate that the High Court ruled that indefinite detention is unconstitutional. That upended two decades of legal precedent and bipartisan policy, and that ruling is now the law of the land. I hope that Senator Cash would agree that no parliament and no minister is above the law. That goes to the first part of Senator Cash's preamble about how it has come to pass that immigration detainees have been released into the community with— Senator Cash I0M Seriously? That's your excuse, for a woman who has been sexually assaulted? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm not making excuses. I am explaining factually what has occurred and why some immigration detainees have been released into the community, under strict conditions which this parliament supported. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! Minister, please resume your seat. I called order several times, and particularly Senator Cash and Senator Henderson continued to shout. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING I am explaining how it has come to pass that detainees were released into the community. In relation to the specific matter that Senator Cash raises, we are aware of that case. We will not comment on individual cases. It's before the courts, and we will not risk prejudicing court proceedings. We will do everything in our power, as we have been doing, to deport individuals who have no right to be in the country and to keep the community safe. This is a matter the government takes incredibly seriously. Our law enforcement agencies—the ABF, the AFP, the state and territory police forces—are working together, and they are doing an extraordinary job. When there is a matter, whether it be a breach of a visa condition or an individual is arrested, then we will manage that as well. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Minister Giles, said in the other place on 13 February, of the 149 hardcore criminals he released into the community following the NZYQ decision, that 'each one of them is being continuously monitored'. How can they have been continuously monitored if this individual was able to commit the further sexual offences he has now been charged with? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'll just remind Senator Cash, because it doesn't seem to be penetrating, that the High Court made a decision. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Senator GALLAGHER ING Is Senator Cash suggesting that the government should not follow the law of the land? Is that what she is suggesting? In relation to the arrangements that have been put in place, this parliament has passed a number of laws to ensure the safety of the community. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order! Senator McKim. Senator Ruston, I called you several times and you continue to interject. Silence across the chamber. Senator GALLAGHER ING Individuals in this cohort are being monitored in compliance with the arrangements that have been put in place by this place and, indeed, by the other measures that have been put in place, whether it be through— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you have asked your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING assessment by the Community Protection Board. There are visa conditions— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator GALLAGHER ING electronic monitoring devices, curfews, community safety supervision orders and preventive detention as the four layers of protection. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I should not have to constantly call Senator Cash, in particular, to order. A second supplementary, Senator Cash? 14:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia How many other serious sexual offenders are currently at large in Victoria, and will you accept responsibility for your government's failure to keep Victorians safe? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Cash for the question. The government is working day and night to keep the community safe. There are laws in place that you backed in. What you are suggesting, Senator Cash—and I presume it represents the opposition position—is that the law enforcement agencies that are working day and night to keep the community safe aren't doing a good enough job. Is that what you're suggesting? That is what you are suggesting. It is implicit in the way you are asking— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order! If you want to make a comment, find another time during the time the Senate is sitting, not question time. I have constantly called a number of you to order. You are out of order, and you are disrespectful. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government set up Operation AEGIS. That has a number of elements to it, all focused on keeping the community safe. This is the government's No. 1 priority. When an offence occurs, the law enforcement agencies respond, as they have. That matter is now before the court. Safety is our main priority, and your suggestion, Senator Cash, is that law enforcement aren't doing their job properly. That is it. We do not accept that. It is a slur on them. Their work is extraordinary. (Time expired) Taxation 726 14:06 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Labor's tax cuts passed the parliament this week, locking in a tax cut for all Australians on 1 July this year. This will see many more taxpayers in my state of Victoria get a tax cut, where they were not going to get one under the Morrison government plan. Minister, how much more will people keep in their own pockets under Labor's plan? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the question and for her focus on the cost of living and how to alleviate cost-of-living pressures, particularly in her home state of Victoria. A person on an average income of $73,000 will get a tax cut of $1,504, an increase of $804 compared to the Morrison tax plan. A person on a national full-time minimum wage of just over $45,000 will get a tax cut of $827, an increase of $804 compared to the former tax plan. Under our tax cuts, people earning $45,000 will get the largest increase in tax relief as a proportion of their income, because under the former tax plan they were getting zero. They will now get a tax return that they deserve. A person on an income of $50,000 will get a tax cut of $929. A person on an income of $100,000 will get a tax cut of $2,179. A person on an income of $130,000 will get a tax cut of $3,379. Those on high incomes, of $190,000 or $200,000, will get a tax cut of over $4½ thousand. This is still the largest absolute tax cut by any income group. We know that these tax cuts go to 100 per cent of taxpayers. We know that 90 per cent of women will get a bigger tax cut, as I said yesterday. We know the benefits right across Victoria, for example, where 3½ million people will get a tax cut on 1 July under our tax plan and 86 per cent of taxpayers in Victoria will get a bigger tax cut. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, a first supplementary? 14:09 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria We know Australians are facing ongoing cost-of-living challenges and that addressing that issue is at the core of the Albanese Labor government's policy agenda. Labor's tax cuts are the latest in a suite of measures that the government has delivered since taking office to alleviate cost-of-living pressures. Can the minister please outline to the Senate the benefits of Labor's tax cuts that build on other cost-of-living measures our government has taken? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Stewart. I can. The point that Senator Stewart raises is how the tax cuts work in conjunction with some of those other important measures we've put in place. For example, we've delivered urgent care clinics across Australia— Senator GALLAGHER ING They're going very well, Senator Ruston. It must really pain you. I know you've been hoping for their failure, but they are going incredibly well, with more support than we'd expected. We've got one that has opened in Frankston. Since 30 June that clinic has delivered more than 12,000 services to the people of Dunkley. More than one in three of those services have been delivered to children under 15, which is exactly the group that we were trying to ensure would benefit from the Medicare urgent care clinics. We have also cut the cost of medicines, we're addressing housing shortages, cheaper child care and of course the Energy Price Relief Plan that those opposite— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, a second supplementary? 14:11 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Why were Labor's tax cuts the right thing to deliver for the current economic climate? How might Australians have been worse off if these tax cuts had not unanimously passed this parliament this week? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Cost-of-living relief is the No. 1 priority for the Albanese government, and our approach will provide bigger tax cuts for more people and Middle Australia. We're continuing to roll out relief. We've found a better and more responsible way to deliver even more support. We know that the biggest threat to those tax cuts is, of course, the secret plan, or the 'back to the drawing board' plan, that was announced by the shadow finance minister. We know that you can't trust the Liberals on tax. We know what 'back to the drawing board' means. It means a redesign of stage 3 to take money away from low- and middle-income earners, who deserve the tax cuts that they will get on 1 July. We also know that there will be cuts to Medicare, cuts to the ABC and cuts to education. This is what you get. You can't trust the Liberal Party. (Time expired) Immigration Detention 727 14:12 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. A short while ago, the Australian Border Force confirmed that a convicted sex offender who was released following the NZYQ decision has been arrested and charged with further sex offences yesterday in Melbourne. Why did the government not apply for a community safety detention order to redetain this serial sex offender, a decision that could only be made by a minister, not law enforcement? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In relation to the matter that Senator Paterson raised, we are not going to comment on individual cases, because we will not prejudice court proceedings that are underway. We will continue to do everything in our power to keep the community safe; to deport individuals who have no right to be in the country; and to ensure that Operation AEGIS, which was established immediately following the High Court decision, has all of the support that the government can bring to it to ensure that law enforcement and security agencies are working together to deal with the release of this cohort of immigration detainees who were released by a decision of the High Court. The minister is working every single day with those security agencies and with his state and territory colleagues to make sure that everything is done that can be done to keep the community safe. As you know, there is a range of work underway: the Department of Home Affairs, working with the Australian Border Force, working with the Community Protection Board. I have seen the work they are doing. I know you want to come in here to stir up and politicise all of these matters. Your natural inclination is to go straight to it, when you know exactly how hard those agencies are working. You know the challenges they face. You are seeking to undermine it here today. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING The minister is working with state and territory colleagues. He's working with all of the relevant agencies to keep the community safe. When there is an offence committed the law enforcement agencies respond as they have, and that matter is currently before the courts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I do believe that was you who made the imputation against the minister. I'm going to ask you to withdraw. Senator McKenzie 207825 Was it me? I called for him to be sacked. Senator McGrath 217241 I'll withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm fairly certain it was Senator Hughes. Senator Hughes 273828 I honestly wasn't calling out, but I withdraw. I don't know what it was. The PRESIDENT 112096 You were calling out, Senator Hughes. Thank you for the withdrawal. Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:15 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria The Minister for Home Affairs has repeatedly said that, if it were up to her, all offenders released as a result of the High Court's decision would be in detention. Minister, it is up to her. Do you accept that this serious alleged offending could have been prevented if the minister had lived up to her word and applied to re-detain this individual? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Gallagher. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm going to sit the minister down again. Senator Hughes very graciously just got up and withdrew. I'm not sure if it was Senator Hughes who made the imputation, but there was an imputation made. The reason I didn't hear it was that this chamber is too noisy. Yelling out is inappropriate from either side. Minister Gallagher. 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you. It took the opposition three years after passing HRTO legislation to make the first application to the court. This is the system that you called for. It's the system that this parliament passed. And—if I can quote you—the shadow minister for home affairs said there is 'a very high legal threshold to be met' for a court to continue to agree to ongoing detention. 'We are all aware that there is a high threshold, and we knew that when we put the legislation through the parliament before Christmas.' So that's what you know. They're the facts. You come in here and conveniently run a different line to the one you know is true and the one I am quoting from. The government is doing everything it can to keep the community safe. We have preventative detention, community safety supervision orders, electronic monitoring devices, curfews— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING and stringent visa conditions, and we are working with all of our colleagues across the states and territories to keep the community safe. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Once again, the chamber just erupted into disorder. Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:17 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Will the government now apologise to the alleged victims and the people of Melbourne that you have failed to protect through your own inaction by failing to make a single application for a preventative detention order despite the parliament rushing them through before Christmas? 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory On the first issue, I think this has been well ventilated, around the work that is being done on preventative detention, and Senator Paterson understands that. You understand it well and you choose to ignore it. By doing so, you are ignoring all of the work that is happening across government and you are undermining that work—you are undermining that work! In relation to all of the victims that have been involved in the NZYQ cohort, of course the government is committed to ensuring that everything is done to support victims and their families, and an enormous amount of work has gone into that as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson? Senator Paterson 144138 My point of order is on direct relevance. The question was: will you apologise? The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant but I will continue to listen. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. I was responding to that despite those opposite shouting at me. I can understand why Senator Paterson couldn't hear. We are committed to doing everything that we can—and I know the minister personally is—to support victims and their families who have been involved with this cohort. Senator Paterson understands exactly how much work is going into preventative detention. You know it and you come in here and you choose to ignore it. (Time expired) Great Barrier Reef 728 14:19 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to Senator Gallagher, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. There have been some disturbing reports today that the Great Barrier Reef is on the brink of a seventh mass coral bleaching. Could you please update the Senate and the Australian people on this disturbing news? When will we know for certain that this has occurred? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson, for the question. I haven't seen those reports this morning, I must say, but I am aware, obviously, of the issue of coral bleaching and the impact on the Great Barrier Reef. This government has made it a priority to make investments into the reef, to restore and repair it, and I know that Senator Green has been leading that work, in consultation with and in support of Minister Plibersek, to do what has needed to be done to ensure the future of the Great Barrier Reef. It's a reef that, as anyone who has visited knows, is of incredible beauty. It's an important part of North Queensland. Senator Rennick 283596 Have you ever dived up there? Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, I have been up there, Senator Rennick—fool! And it deserves all of our attention to protect it, and that's why we have been doing what we can. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Senator GALLAGHER ING I endorse the work of Senator Green, who is doing an incredible job and, as a local up there, of course is in touch with all of the businesses and industries and groups that rely on— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 Madam President, I think the minister might have referred to Senator Rennick with a rather offensive comment, and I wonder whether you might ask her to withdraw? The PRESIDENT 112096 Certainly. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order on my right. Order! Minister, if you made an unparliamentary remark to Senator Rennick, please withdraw. Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm sorry—a lapse of discipline there, President, and I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator GALLAGHER ING And I, of course, would be very happy to debate Senator Rennick. So we are aware of the pressures on the reef. We are also aware of the economic importance and environmental importance of having a healthy reef, and that is why the government remains committed to doing what we need to do to keep the reef safe, to repair the reef where we can and to protect it from coral bleaching as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, a first supplementary? 14:22 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania This is potentially the seventh mass coral bleaching since 1998, which was the first mass coral bleaching ever recorded. It's the fifth in eight years. Ocean temperatures right around the world, year on year, continue to set new records. Minister, does your government accept that the burning of fossil fuels—and climate change—is causing these marine heatwaves and coral bleaching, and that it is the single biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, we certainly believe in climate change. We believe that the transition to renewable energy is an important and essential piece of work before the government. We work with you where we can. I think our record, in the first 18 months, is of doing what we can in the environment portfolio—and it shows what you can do when you have a government that actually does believe in climate change—to make the necessary investments. I will go through them: 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030; 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030; doubling the rate of renewable energy approvals, with 43 ticked off, which will power 2½ million homes; a record 127 more renewable projects in the pipeline; cheaper electric cars; higher fuel efficiency standards; huge upgrades to our energy grid, to take more renewable energy; help for homes and businesses to get off gas and electricity— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, a second supplementary? 14:24 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The latest research shows that, on a two-degree warming scenario, which we're well on the way towards, we'll lose 99 per cent of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef—and it's not the only coral reef in the world that we will lose. Minister, you've said several times today, 'We're doing what we can,' and I agree we can do more, and I'm sure you agree. Will your government consider a climate trigger in new environment laws so that we can actually reduce our emissions in this country and play our part? 14:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The minister for the environment is working with people across this parliament around reforms to that piece of legislation. I have no doubt that that will play out, as it will, in this chamber and the other place. But I would say that it's a much better position to be in to deal with the effects of climate change if we have agreement across the parliament. The biggest threat to the work we're doing now and to reducing the impact of a warming climate is sitting right in front of you, opposing fuel efficiency standards, opposing renewable energy projects and opposing energy bill relief—opposing all the measures we take. If 10 years of climate wars has proved one thing to anybody outside this place it is that when this parliament works together we can get some things done, and we can make steps in the right direction. (Time expired) Taxation 730 14:25 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Watt. The Albanese government is committed to building a future made in Australia and delivering secure, well-paid jobs for Australians. What will be the impact of Labor's tax cuts on the many tradies working across our country? 14:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Sterle, who I know has been a long-time supporter of the rights of blue-collar workers in our country. It's a pleasure to work with you on that, Senator Sterle. Put simply, the Albanese government wants Australia to be a country that makes things again. That's why we're working hard to secure a future made in Australia. At the core of that vision are the talented tradies and the regional and outer suburban communities that support them. We can't achieve a future made in Australia without our amazing chippies, sparkies, fitters and other tradespeople. Our manufacturing and construction industries are growing, and now they employ more than two million Australians, including more than 235,000 new jobs since the election of our government. Manufacturing and construction workers from across Australia—those who make our homes, steel, medicines, food, furniture and everything in between—deserve a government that values them and has their back. Labor's tax cuts demonstrate that we are that government. Our tradies are the backbone of our manufacturing and construction industry, and under the Albanese Labor government they will all be getting a tax cut. Labor's tax cuts will mean that an entry-level plumber making $56,000 a year will get a tax cut of more than $1,000. And let's look at another vital trade, Australia's welders. Under Labor's cost-of-living tax cuts, a welder helping to build Australian products and making $83,000 a year will get a tax cut of $1,754. And how about those hardworking sparkies? An electrician earning $93,000 will get a tax cut of more than $2,000. Australian tradies can bank on Labor to help them earn more and keep more of what they earn. This government is helping Australian manufacturing and construction businesses to grow, and we're supporting manufacturing and construction workers and tradies to prosper. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, first supplementary? 14:28 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Australia's tradies help so many of our factories, production lines and construction sites to turn out great Australian products every single day. How will Labor's tax cuts ensure that those tradies are able to keep more of what they earn? And why is this so important? 14:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks again, Senator Sterle, and I can tell you, as someone who recently renovated his own home, that I know exactly how important our local tradies are to our households. But they also play an absolutely vital role for businesses, both large and small. It's important that we all stimulate the local economy, not just talk about it. Whether it's the plumber making sure the water is running, the metalworker keeping the factory production line moving or the sparky keeping the lights on, they will all benefit from Labor's tax cuts. But, every time we see a Liberal frontbencher have a lightbulb moment and go on TV, they make their position absolutely clear. They want a return to Scott Morrison's tax plan. When deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley was asked whether they would roll back Australia's tax cuts, she said, 'Absolutely this is our position.' And, helpfully, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, offered this up himself without being pushed, saying: 'Do we walk away from the principles of stage 3? Absolutely not.' Senator WATT 245759 And they even say no right now. Senator WATT 245759 Thank you, Senator Hume! They don't walk away from the— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I can't wait to get home to see how it's gone! The Liberals' and Nationals' first reaction was to oppose these cuts, and just yesterday Senator Hume promised the Liberals would 'go back to the drawing board on tax cuts'. Why is it important that tradies benefit from Labor's tax cuts, Minister? 14:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland President, I might need your guidance on the standing orders here, because I'd like to take the interjection from Senator Hume in the answer to the previous question, where she also confirmed that the opposition wants to go back to the principles of the stage 3 tax cuts. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Hume 266499 We do! Senator WATT 245759 'We do!' She's continuing. They're all doing it. They all want to take money from Middle Australia, and they want to take back the tax cuts that we've delivered to low-income earners. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, order! Senator WATT 245759 Thank you. Can you keep confirming? Run up to your TV studios and keep confirming it. Go and keep telling Middle Australia and low-income earners that you want to take those tax cuts back from them because you never supported them in the first place. You were going to oppose them. You were going to roll them back. Then you voted for them, after saying you wanted an election on them, and you're still in here saying that you want to take those cuts back from Middle Australia and low-income earners. Australian tradies need a government that's going to help them earn more and keep more of what they earn, and we've had it confirmed today that the Liberal Party is all about making them work more and earn less. Thank you very much! Trade Unions: Women 731 14:31 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Women. Friday next week, 8 March, is International Women's Day, a day to celebrate women's achievements. On 28 September last year, Minister, you wrote: … we know there is no point encouraging more women into the workforce, if the workplace is not safe. Female unionists have driven change in this country for more than a hundred years. They have a long history of suffrage, standing up and fighting for change that makes Australia a better place. This morning I brought a bill to the chamber seeking to protect vulnerable women from the construction division of the CFMEU and men like John Setka and to help these women be safe. Instead of supporting this bill, this government, a government that you are a minister in—the Minister for Women no less—said it will not support the bill. Minister, how do you reconcile your lack of support for these working women with your role as the Minister for Women? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I reject any assertion that I don't support women or working women or women's safety, and I have spoken about that. A big part of my career in public life has been focused on improving the lives of women, particularly around women's safety. In relation to the bill that was before the parliament this morning, as the representing minister said, the government recognises the issue that was put forward in the bill and the motivation behind the bill. We understand that there are ongoing discussions between the relevant parties within the organisation and we're not going to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions. That's why the government isn't supporting the bill. But I'm not going to sit here and in any way accept the fact that we are not a government that is focused on women's safety or on improving the lives of women, whether it be in health, whether it be at work, whether it be in economic security, whether it be ending violence against women and children, whether it be supporting the work that Minister Rishworth does, whether it be in working with the states and territories. I have a women's ministers meeting tomorrow where women's safety is a standing item. I am involved in other ministerial councils. I put women's safety on the agenda of those to make sure that they are being driven through other councils, including data and digital ministers, to make sure that we are doing everything we can to improve women's safety, reduce the amount of violence and improve working women's conditions. I'm very well aware of the suffrage movement through the union movement. All of us have been involved in that for all of our careers. We don't need someone to lecture us on that. It is part of our DNA. It is a part of the organisations we represent. We're proud of that. We're proud of being Labor people, and we're proud of the union movement and the work that women have done within the union movement. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:34 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Enough talk—more action. A hundred and forty years ago, in 1882, Melbourne tailoresses went on strike to protect vulnerable people—women and children in this case—from unsafe working conditions. This industrial action, which was considered sensational and absolutely extraordinary at the time by many of the male commentators, enabled the factory reform act 1883, which led to greater workplace protection for children. Minister, how do you think you and your government stack up against these women? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We're continuing the work of those incredible women. Those women, through the work in the union movement, fed into the foundation of our political organisation. All of the women involved in the Labor Party—and, indeed, all of the men involved in the Labor Party—build on the work of those women and those men who were very brave as they fought for industrial rights in this country. That fight continues today, as we know. We've had the 'closing loopholes' bill. We've had all the claims that any improvement in industrial relations is going to be the end of everything, the end of the world. We have the resistance to what was occurring back in the 1800s sitting in front of us today. We absolutely are committed to improving the lives of working women. We understand that within the organisation there are discussions, and it's absolutely appropriate that those be allowed to occur. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Over the last two years the CFMEU gave the Australian Labor Party $4.8 million—hush money to keep the ALP quiet on the fact that the CFMEU is using standover tactics, bullying and harassment to keep these women quiet and to ensure these women know their place—they are to be seen and not heard. Is this why Labor won't support these women? Is $4.8 million what it costs to keep the ALP in lock step with John Setka and the CFMEU? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I completely reject that question, absolutely. If there is a scrap of evidence to support that then the responsibility is on Senator Lambie to bring forward that evidence. There are electoral laws in this country. There are laws governing political donations. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING People can come in here and point the finger about political donations—and I can certainly hear those opposite relishing it. Well, they get plenty of political donations themselves! Is there any evidence at all to support the claim that you are putting? We abide by the law. Those who donate to political parties should abide by the law. That information is important so that people have the transparency and accountability that comes with accepting those donations. That is the framework that operates in this country, and, unless there is any evidence to support your claim, Senator Lambie, it reflects on you. (Time expired) Immigration Detention 732 14:37 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. As we have heard, the Victorian police and the Australian Border Force have issued statements this morning confirming that a man released by this government following the NZYQ case was arrested for serious sexual offences and, according to Victoria Police, a woman was allegedly assaulted and another allegedly stalked. This minister and the government have repeatedly sought to compare the community safety detention order passed last December by this parliament with the continuing detention orders that had previously been in place. Minister, will you confirm that, under the continuing detention orders, individuals were continuously detained and not released into the community? In contrast, the NZYQ cohort are in the community. Isn't this comprehensive misunderstanding by the Albanese government another demonstration of just how your government is failing to accept responsibility for ensuring these individuals are monitored and put back in detention? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I absolutely reject the question and the preamble that Senator Birmingham has put in place. Those who participated in estimates last week—particularly the Home Affairs estimates, where these matters were gone into in great depth—understand exactly how much work is underway on preventive detention. I would also say that a big difference is that the High Court actually came down with a ruling that said indefinite detention is no— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston and Senator Cash: I have called order and you've continued to interject. Listen in silence. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The preventive detention model that the government put in place—through laws that passed this place—is based on the former Liberal government's high-risk terror-offenders scheme. As others on that side know, including the shadow minister for home affairs, there is a very high legal threshold to be met for a court to agree to ongoing detention. We're all aware that there's a high threshold, and we knew that when we put the legislation through. As those opposite know, there is significant work underway preparing applications. We want those applications to be successful. People are working day and night on those applications, and you know that. You pretend otherwise, but you know it. The moment those laws passed this place, that work began— Senator Birmingham H6X It should have started before that. Senator GALLAGHER ING I was going to say: in fact, there was work underway before that but, once the law was settled, those applications have been worked on. You know that, and you know that the difference with NZYQ is that the High Court has made a ruling. The government had to abide by that ruling, as you would have had to, if you were in government. The law changed, and we have been working tirelessly since that occurred to keep the community safe and put in place a framework that works. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The government has claimed that individuals released are subject to continuous monitoring. Yet somehow these individuals subject to continuous monitoring increasingly seem to be continuously reoffending. The government, equally, has claimed that it is doing everything possible to make applications for new detention orders, yet none have been lodged. How can any Australian have confidence in the actions of this government when every statement it has made is seen and found to be untrue? (Time expired) 14:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The statements are not untrue that the government— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, they're not! I don't accept that at all. I do not accept that. We have been working on applications for preventative detention, and they will proceed. We want those applications to be successful. It is a high legal threshold, and it does require working with states and territories who have a lot of the information to put together those applications so that they are successful. In the meantime, there are a range of measures, as you're aware, that the law enforcement agencies are undertaking in monitoring the NZYQ cohort. To suggest that they are not being monitored is to reflect on the work of those— Senator McKenzie 207825 No, it's not. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, it is. That is exactly what it is, because you are alleging that they are not doing their job properly. You are undermining the whole framework by the way that you are playing this. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, you are. That's exactly what you are doing. You are saying they're not doing their job properly, and we reject that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 14:42 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Senator Paterson invited the minister to apologise to the alleged victim of this latest sexual assault and, indeed, other victims of the NZYQ cohort. The minister did not take the opportunity to apologise. If the Albanese government is refusing to say sorry and refusing to apologise to those who have been impacted by crimes of these released criminals, what is your message to those who are paying the real-life consequences of their release and reoffending? 14:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Birmingham for the question, I don't think there's anyone in this place who wouldn't be concerned and who wouldn't feel for the victims involved—not only with this group of individuals but more broadly—particularly those who may have suffered from a sexual assault or a sexual crime. I'm not going to reflect on the individual who is before the court because I don't want to prejudice that matter that is before the court. To do so would be irresponsible. But I think to suggest that there are people in this place who don't care and haven't turned their mind to that is just not true, and you know it's not true. We are all here. We are all worried about people who may have been on the end of the offending. The minister has reached out as you would expect to ensure support is being provided to relevant individuals. (Time expired) National Security 734 14:44 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. When will the government name the former Australian politician that ASIO Chief Mike Burgess yesterday referenced as someone who sold out Australia to advance the interests of a foreign regime? 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Roberts for the question, and I note the annual threat assessment that was delivered last night by the director-general of ASIO. We have utmost confidence in our security and intelligence services. The director-general made a comment about this. He was specifically asked about this last night. He said he'd made a deliberate decision not to name the individual, and he provided reasons for this. The government respects his judgement. He has our 100 per cent support. He has the full picture, and he made an informed decision. The threat assessment made clear that we need to continue to be vigilant and sober in how we respond to threats, and this is what we are doing. The annual threat assessment is an assessment made by ASIO. It is delivered by the director-general of that organisation. It's not something that the government authors. It's a document that is very much the director-general's and ASIO's, and he has all the information available to him. He made a decision about that. If that decision changes, that's his decision as well. It is not a decision for the government to make. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 14:45 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Former parliamentarians, as I understand it, have an automatic pass to enter Parliament House. The former politician who sold out this country could be in this building right now, in a parliamentarian's office, and the office holder, MP or senator, would have no idea they're talking to a spy. Why won't you name the traitor now? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think passes to this building are a matter for the Presiding Officers—the rules around that. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I think it is, isn't it? An honourable senator: Yes. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, it is. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, it is. Sorry, but it's not a matter that the government is responsible for. In relation to the question you asked, which was about naming an individual, it's a matter for the director-general of ASIO. If he were to choose to name an individual, that would be a matter for him. As part of his annual threat assessment, he made a decision to raise the issue, I think, and to rightly point to the fact that foreign interference is an issue. It's an issue that all of us, as members of parliament, need to be aware of— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, you have just put the Presiding Officer in a difficult position. Why is this government afraid to say the c-word and acknowledge the country that is the greatest risk to Australia's interests and largest perpetrator of foreign interference—China, the Chinese Communist Party? 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm not sure of the question really. We talk about China all the time as a government. We've been seeking to stabilise the relationship. We've been seeking to remove some of the trade bans. But we've also been very clear that we must disagree where we do, and, where we can agree, we should reach agreement. But there are things that are in our national interests that we may disagree on, and then we will be upfront about that. We will always act in our country's national interest. That's what we've done from the first day we were appointed and it's what we will continue to do. That's what guides us in relation to our interactions and our work across the world. There are a number of countries that we engage with regularly, but it's always in our national interest that we do that. Taxation 734 14:48 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. The amazing nurses, paramedics, physios, podiatrists and other healthcare professionals who work across the country's hospitals and primary care system support Australians every single day, often in their time of need. Given their tireless contribution, can the minister please tell the Senate how Labor is backing these healthcare workers by delivering them all a tax cut on 1 July? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Polley, for that question and, again, for your ongoing interest in all matters relating to cost-of-living pressures, how we can reduce cost-of-living pressures on families and, particularly—and I know this is a significant issue in Tasmania right now—around the delivery of health services. The health workforce, of course, is such an important workforce as we grow the care economy in this country. From 1 July Labor will deliver every healthcare worker in the country a tax cut to help with the cost of living. A nurse in Western Sydney who is earning $76,000 will receive a tax cut of over $1,500. A hospital cleaner in Adelaide who is earning $59,000 will get a tax cut of over $1,000—$1,154. A physio in Melbourne's north who is earning $110,000 will get a tax cut of $2,400. A podiatrist in the NT who is earning $87,000 will get a tax cut of $1,854. And guess what? Their patients—indeed, every taxpayer—will get a tax cut, too. We want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. And we know what those opposite want. They want them to work harder for less. That's what's guiding their policy. That's why they're going back to the drawing board on the tax cuts. We know we can't trust them on tax, we can't trust them on services. We're supporting healthcare workers through the urgent care clinics, through the work that's being done there to provide out-of-hours care free of charge. We know this has been a huge success for kids under 15. We know this is an area that's going to contribute so much to the economy but, more importantly, so much to people who need access to health care that's affordable and accessible in their local areas. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Healthcare workers in our hospitals work long hours and in stressful environments. They are there for Australians in some of their darkest hours. How is the Albanese Labor government backing these workers? And can the minister inform the Senate of how much more money nurses in my home state of Tasmania will keep in their pockets on 1 July? 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Polley for standing up for nurses in Tasmania. A registered nurse in Tassie who is earning $75,000 will get a tax cut of $1,154 a year. Based on their level of seniority, that obviously may vary, but, coming in at around an entry level, that's a significant tax cut for those nurses. It recognises the work they do in Launceston, in Hobart, in Devonport—in all the country hospitals and the GP practices. Wherever you see a nurse they will be getting a tax cut. This is also important for other staff who work at hospitals, like hospital orderlies, the cleaners at hospitals and the allied healthcare workers at hospitals. We've been focused on making sure all Australian taxpayers get a fair share of these tax cuts. That's why the passage of that legislation earlier this week was so important. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, second supplementary? 14:52 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Minister, why is it so important that these healthcare workers get a bigger tax cut on 1 July under Labor's plan? And, can I say, my young brother, who is a worker, is so looking forward to getting this tax cut on his birthday! 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, I'm sure you can take credit for that, Senator Polley. What a birthday present indeed—on 1 July, a tax cut as a birthday present! So please take credit for that, Senator Polley. We know that what we've been doing, whether through tax or through some of our cost-of-living measures, is about what we absolutely can do to address inflation across the economy. That has been guiding a lot of our decisions. And we know the importance of these tax cuts to workers across Australia. We know the pressure workers are under. That's why we took the decision—and it wasn't an easy decision, because it was a change in our position—because it was the right thing to do, for the right reasons. Those opposite said they would oppose it. They said they'd call an election over it. They said they'd roll it back. And now the language has changed to just 'back to the drawing board'. Well, we know what 'back to the drawing board' is. It's code for taking tax cuts away from people and cutting services. Immigration Detention 736 14:54 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. Of the 149 hardcore criminals released by the Albanese government, including many rapists and sex offenders, can the minister advise how many have reoffended since they were released? 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I understand that information is made available through the reporting by the relevant state or territory or the Federal Police—so that information is publicly available. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, it's publicly available, so go and find it. I'm not here to do your homework for you. I'm not here to do your homework. The government's job is to put in place the arrangements that keep the community safe. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 We're happy to wait until you google it, Minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume! Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, google yourself. Honestly! Senator McGrath 217241 Wow! So mature! Senator GALLAGHER ING Come on, Senator McGrath! The issue you raise around the management of the NZYQ case is a serious one, which is why the government has taken it so seriously. That's why the work is being done. That's why, when there is an offence— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 Point of order on relevance. I didn't ask about the management; I just asked about the number. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being directly relevant to that part of your question, Senator Hume. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X It was a very precise question in relation to the number. If the minister, for some unknown reason, doesn't have the number in her briefing folders, or if Minister Watt doesn't have it in his, or if they're unwilling for some reason to turn to the relevant page and reveal it, the least the minister can do is take it on notice so the Senate eventually receives the actual answer—rather than telling people to go and google it, when I'm pretty confident you won't find it if you just google it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. As you know, I cannot direct the words that the minister uses to answer questions. The minister has answered that part of the question. It may not have been the answer you were seeking, but she has answered it. Minister, please continue. Senator Birmingham H6X The minister has refused to answer it. Senator GALLAGHER ING No, I haven't refused to answer it. I have answered it. That information is made public through the relevant law enforcement agencies. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham! You've got one of your own senators on her feet. I've called her to ask her question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston—equally! Senator Hume. 14:57 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Of the 149 hardcore criminals that were released by the Albanese government, including many rapists and sex offenders, can the minister tell me how many have been rearrested? 14:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory That's the same question asked a different way. That matter is made public by the relevant law enforcement agencies. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please take your seat. Senator Cash I0M How many have been rearrested? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I don't see you on your feet. I've got Senator Hume on her feet. Senator Hume 266499 Point of order on relevance. The first question was about how many had reoffended. The second question was about how many had been rearrested. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, I believe the minister has completed her answer, so I invite you to put your second supplementary. 14:58 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria If the minister doesn't understand the question, I'm happy for her to take the answer on notice. But can the minister guarantee that the remaining hardcore criminals— Senator Green 259819 You don't understand the question! You can't even read it out! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green! Senator Cash I0M Excuse me! Senator HUME 266499 Can the minister guarantee that the remaining hardcore criminals— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, I'm sorry, could you resume your seat. Senator Cash, I had called Senator Green to order and you continued to interject over your own senator asking a question. Senator Hume, I invite you to begin again. Senator HUME 266499 Can the minister guarantee that the remaining hardcore criminals released by this government, who are still in our community, are in fact being adequately monitored? Can you please make this guarantee on behalf of your government to the people of Victoria, and particularly the women of Victoria, where this last offence occurred? 14:59 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I can guarantee that the government is working with the law enforcement agencies to manage the NZYQ cohort to keep the community safe. Where there are issues, whether it be through visa breaches or offending or committing an offence for which they are charged, the law enforcement agencies do the job that they are meant to do and that we support, and they are doing an extraordinary job. I ask that all further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. BUDGET 737 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 737 15:00 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for an explanation of why answers have not been provided to question on notice No. 786 asked during the 2023-24 supplementary budget estimates hearings of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. This question is related to medical services for veterans. 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't believe we'd been given any prior advice that this was going to come up, so I'm a little bit unable to assist Senator Lambie with the issue she's raised. 15:01 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's response. We actually gave you notice on Monday, and you're still not listening to us. Quite frankly, we have a royal commission going on. You would think you would have learnt by now. This is well into four months. It was four months ago that some very simple questions were asked over a story broadcasted by the ABC's 7.30that centred on a podiatry business and detailed evidence of fake GP referrals, bogus billing and charging fees for no service to schemes for injured workers, including those of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We simply asked a few questions. We're four months down. This is taxpayers' money that we're talking about, by the way, as well as the detrimental, negative effect it's actually having on veterans. Like I said, it's not just veterans; there are others as well. We asked simple things like: How are these checks being performed by the department? What are the systems between the psychiatry billing and the podiatry billing? We haven't asked hard questions here. Who specifically in the department is doing these checks? I'm assuming, as we're now four months in and we keep continually going to the department and asking this, that you actually have nobody doing these checks. What controls does DVA have in place to ensure that what is being paid out to practitioners is justified? Once again, why aren't you doing the checks and balances here? Because I can't get to that point, I don't know what's happening to these medical practitioners. What is happening to them? What is the retribution that will happen to them for doing this? Is there none? We don't care? There is nothing happening. There are no repercussions for these practitioners. And, by the way, I haven't heard the AMA say a damn thing about this either, and they know what's going on. It just seems like you don't want to deal with this. This is taxpayers' money that we're talking about here. If there are medical practitioners out there rorting the system, then every Australian taxpayer and every veteran should know that. Veterans are finding it very difficult to access their billing history to check that what is being billed is true and accurate. They are often told it will take months to process their billing history. This is where I really want to thump you today. Take months? You've been providing our medical history to the University of South Australia for years. Everything you are looking for that I have put in a request for is on that billing history, so why is it taking you four months? We've all got our FOIs back, and I know that exactly what I'm asking for in this document is in that history that you are providing to the South Australian university. Why aren't you getting back to these veterans? I find it really disrespectful—with everything that is going on, especially with the royal commission, where many have had to go up and tell their stories and have been retraumatized—that it's taking four months, over something simple, to hold medical practitioners responsible for ripping off the system and ripping off taxpayers' money. We're four months in, and nothing is being done about this. You can't be serious. I ask that, by the time I get back here in the next 2½ weeks, I have answers to these questions. I do not want to take up any more time this afternoon. I don't want to have to use another 10 minutes. Once again, I'm going to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. Every question we've asked is actually on our data, practically, which we can find and which the department has provided to the University of South Australia. It's already there, but you can't provide that data to me. It is beyond disgusting. Given the circumstance that we're still going on with a royal commission into veterans suicide, please just answer the questions that I gave you four months ago. That is all I'm asking. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 738 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Immigration Detention 738 15:07 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to immigration detention. There is no higher duty of government than to protect the citizens of Australia. Sadly, we see yet again—and we've seen it since the High Court's decision last year—a government asleep at the wheel when it comes to these important issues of national security that go directly to protecting the citizens of Australia in the circumstances where criminal detainees have been released. Yes, there was a High Court decision. We on this side all understand that. But we also saw, when that decision was handed down, a government that was like a deer in the headlights—a government which did not know what to do and which did nothing for day after day after day following that High Court decision. It didn't seem capable of making a decision. Ministers got up in the other place and said, 'There's nothing we can do.' Then, following interventions from the opposition—in particular the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Dutton—the government realised there was something they could do and introduced legislation. They then said that the legislation was the absolute best it could be. After having a look at it, key opposition shadow ministers and the Leader of the Opposition once more suggested changes to that bill to strengthen it. The government's bill—the bill that couldn't be improved—suddenly, six amendments later, was improved. Yet we still have a government asleep at the wheel, not fulfilling its principal obligation to protect the people of Australia. Let me read you the police bulletin that came out: 'Police have arrested a man on 28 February following two incidents in Richmond on 27 February 2024, where a woman was allegedly assaulted and another woman allegedly stalked.' It goes on to say, 'Victorian police can confirm the man is one of the detainees recently released following the High Court ruling.' We learnt during estimates and we have learnt in this place that the government has not put in any applications—not one—for re-detention of those detainees. Documents tabled in the Senate earlier reveal that 37 of the 149 criminals released into the community were sex offenders. Six of those who have been released have been arrested and charged with breaching visa conditions. Another 18 have been charged by state and territory police. So, sadly, what we have seen in the last 24 hours is not an isolated case. It is a repeated pattern of behaviour, and we have a government that seems incapable of taking decisive action in this space. It is incapable of taking decisive action to protect the people of Australia, to fulfil its first and principal obligation as a government. Instead, we have a government that has spent the last 18 months focused on things that don't help or protect the people of Australia. We have a government that has been incapable of dealing with a range of issues that are confronting the people of Australia. Here we have them clearly failing to address even very simple questions asked by shadow ministers in this place. They were incapable of answering the simplest of questions that any minister worth their salt should be able to answer. That is either because they don't know the answer, which is shameful, or they don't want to say the number. They don't want to say the number of former detainees who have been arrested in this country. That is a great shame. 15:12 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I think we will hear a different set of questions after the Dunkley by-election on Saturday. There's nothing the Liberals like better than creating a scare campaign. That's what they do. When everything else fails, they resort to the tried and true 'Let's just scare people out in the community.' There is no doubt that it is irresponsible of those on that side of the chamber to suggest that the highest priority of the Albanese Labor government, or any government, is not the safety of our people. It is irresponsible of those opposite to make that claim. We all know that it was the High Court's decision that was made and that no matter what colour the government of the day, whether the Liberals and Nationals were still in power or whether we were, the decision of the High Court would have been the same. The action that needs to be taken has been taken. We're doing everything we can to support law enforcement in this country to ensure there is close supervision of these detainees that are back in our community. We have done that. We've put in place four layers of protection: preventive detention, community safety supervision orders, electronic monitoring devices and curfews, and stringent visa conditions. We've done all of this. Those opposite have tried to make some mileage out of this whole issue, so I just want to remind those opposite—and they know this; that's the interesting thing when they come into this chamber—that the government's preventive detention and community safety regime is modelled on no less than the Liberal-National coalition's own high-risk terrorist offenders scheme. That's what it's based on. It took more than three years for the first continuing detention order application to be lodged after the high-risk terrorist offenders regime was established. That is why we are paying full attention to the detail and making sure those applications are of the highest calibre, to ensure that they're not going to be rejected. That's why we're putting this in place. But I want to take up the unfair criticism of the Australian Federal Police and our police services at a state level. To say that we have no sympathy, no concern, for the victims of any crime that has been committed, allegedly, by any of these former detainees is totally unfair and ungracious; it really is. But I want to place on record here today that not only is our government very supportive of them but I personally appreciate the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Border Force and our state and territory police forces for what they do to keep our citizens safe and secure every single day. And they work continuously to do that. We have invested a quarter of a billion dollars to arm our agencies of law enforcement, so we're actually putting the money where our mouth is. If that's not a clear demonstration of the commitment that we have, I don't know what will be. We've given our agencies the tools they need to enforce the strict laws we passed in this parliament last year. Our law enforcement agencies—the AFP and the Australian Border Force, along with their counterparts in the states and territories—work around the clock, as I said, to keep us safe. Again, I want to reiterate that it is wrong to come into this place and try to assert that a Labor government, this Albanese Labor government, does not give No. 1 priority to keeping our community safe, because we do. The Australian people know that this decision was one taken by the High Court of Australia that could not be denied. (Time expired) 15:17 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I have to say, what we saw today in question time was an alarming and pathetic performance by this government in relation to what is a very serious community safety issue. For the Labor Party, for this government, to try to fob this off by saying that the same laws are in place as when we were in government, that it was a decision of the High Court that's overruled the existing process, and to try to convince the Australian people that there's nothing to see here—which is effectively what they're doing—and then to try to divert the blame for their complete inaction on this matter to the coalition is offensive; it's disgraceful. They stand and say, 'We're working; we're using all our efforts to work with the authorities; we're doing everything we can to keep Australians safe.' We asked them a simple question, one simple question—how many people have reoffended?—and they can't answer the question. So how do we believe anything they've said with respect to their efforts in relation to dealing with this matter, with respect to their attention to this matter, when they can't answer the simple questions of how many people have reoffended and how many people have been arrested? The throwaway line from the minister at the table is, 'Just google it.' I mean, what utter disrespect for this chamber, for this parliament and for the Australian people when the minister says, 'Just google it'—that's her response. This government is responsible for coordinating this process. This government is responsible for managing the oversight. The minister says, 'We are doing everything we can, working with the authorities, to make sure that these people are being monitored.' Yet what does the community see as a result of this? Offence after offence after offence. And the minister cannot even tell this chamber how many offenders there have been. I mean, what a disgrace, what an utter disgrace. The simplest of questions that we ask for an answer to, and all we get is deflection: 'It's all the opposition's fault. It's all someone else's fault. You're trying to create something that's not here.' Yet all we're doing is asking simple questions, and the minister tells us, 'Just google it.' How outrageous that that's the answer—no attempt, no 'I'll take it on notice,' which would have been the best answer if the minister didn't have the number, and she should have had the number. As I said, this government is responsible for coordinating this whole process. It's not a matter that the states have to look after. Yes, the state police forces are doing some work. But then the minister comes in here and says, 'We're doing everything we can do to monitor; we're doing everything we can to work with the authorities,' but doesn't know the simplest of details: how many people have reoffended and how many people have been rearrested. And when it comes to issuing orders to deal with the people who are reoffending, how many orders have been issued? Zero. Zip. Nada. Not one. So how does the Australian community have any confidence in what this government is doing? We ask a simple question, and what do we get? The Sergeant Schultz response: 'I know nothing.' It's an absolute disgrace, and it's shameful. The government makes all these claims about how hard they're working, how they're beavering away working closely with authorities, but we come into the chamber and ask some very simple questions and they treat the chamber with complete disrespect: 'Just google it.' The government needs to do better in responding to the questions of this chamber. 15:22 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The opposition clearly don't live in the real world and never have. If you trace the issues that arose in today's question time, of which the opposition has taken note, back to the decisions made under the last government, the Federal Court made a number of findings that said that the former government was illegally holding people in detention. This included a man who should have been sent back to his home country but instead was locked up at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre for many, many years. He was eventually released and has been given some $350,000 in compensation since that time. A case like that highlights that the last government did nothing within the law to resolve the nature of arbitrary detention in our immigration system. Now, if you are a criminal offender and you've done your time and you don't have citizenship status here then you would expect that, yes, you will be on your way to deportation. But what was missing in the context of the last government but is clearly on the table now—in terms of Operation Aegis and our law enforcement agencies working together—is, in addition to the federal powers we now have, a reinvoking of the state powers. Frankly, I can imagine that there's been a history of states saying, 'Right, this person's served their minimum time; let's make them a federal government problem and set them up for deportation and we'll put them in immigration detention.' But you should really have parole boards deciding whether people are suitable for release, and you should have the kind of oversight and monitoring, when offences are serious, that is actually properly integrated with the state police. Instead we have an opposition absolutely intent on politicising these issues. We have been working through putting in place the right layers of protection, which include preventative detention, community safety supervision orders, electronic-monitoring devices, curfews and stringent visa conditions. But, of course, we also have to work with the states, who have remaining powers in their existing criminal law and, in some cases, remaining powers under parole et cetera. Perhaps those issues have expired because someone was merely seen as having served their term and flicked into the federal system. And perhaps states should have kept hold of some of those powers to put potential conditions on someone's release. Instead, that was probably seen as not necessary, and people were pushed straight into the Commonwealth system. These issues have been around for a very long time. For example, the Syrian case that I spoke about had been afoot, with the Syrian man serving some five years in detention. After six years, the Federal Court finally made a decision. Let's try and look logically and sensibly at these issues. We are working through these issues with urgency and with preparation, recognising the risks that can be presented by having persons with a criminal history who have a likelihood of reoffending. This cohort of people are by no means the only people in Australia who present this kind of risk. We have many thousands of them in our state systems. We need to make sure that we are working together. (Time expired) 15:27 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland The only people who have paid a price for the government's shocking oversight of our justice regime last year have been the victims of the criminals who were unnecessarily released onto our streets. There were 149 foreign criminals released last year as a result of a court case which caught the government completely unprepared. This case had been going on for many months, and we now know that the government had been briefed for many months ahead of it that there was a risk of losing this case—there always is in court cases—and the consequence of the case being lost would potentially be the release of over 100 criminals onto our streets. Despite that risk, the ministers involved in this portfolio area, Minister O'Neil and Minister Giles, did absolutely nothing to prepare themselves for the worst outcome. In defence of their unpreparedness in the weeks following the court decision, Minister O'Neil claimed that the advice she had was that they would win, so therefore they didn't bother coming up with a plan B. That admission alone should have been enough to have Minister O'Neil sacked. You should never, as someone responsible for such a serious issue as our nation's justice system and keeping criminals off streets, be planning for the best and hoping that it all works out. You should be planning for the worst and then hoping for the best. Minister O'Neil failed to do basic diligence on behalf of the Australian people. She failed her duty that she swore to do: to protect the Commonwealth. She should have either resigned or been sacked from her position. Of the 149 who have been released, 24 either have been charged or have breached visa conditions. Why is it that, after so long, we still have had no accountability from this government? What does it take for someone to pay a price for the clear errors that have been made? Effectively the government have admitted these errors, because not long after saying that they couldn't do anything about it, that they couldn't have been prepared, they rushed through legislation last year to try, in a belated way, to fix up their mess. There were clearly errors made here, and there were significant errors—enough for people to lose their jobs. Other Australians have been harassed, have been subject to criminal action because of the government's errors. As I said, those Australians have paid a deep price that, for them, will last for the rest of their lives while the ministers here seemingly get off scot-free and pay no penalty whatsoever. It is not the right example to set in this place. It is not the right approach to restore the trust and confidence of the Australian people in our parliament, where they see their elected representatives making mistake after mistake and paying no price for it. As I mentioned, 24 of the 149 foreign criminals either have been charged or have breached their visa conditions. That's one in six of those released—so far! We're only a few months down the track. One in six have failed to obey the law since their release. That alone shows the grave risk that faces the Australian people by having these criminals released onto our streets. The other thing here is: why, after rushing legislation through last year? And we on this side of politics cooperated with that. We helped to facilitate the passage of those bills late last year. Those bills were sold to us as a solution that would allow the rearrest of some of these 149 foreign criminals; we would be able to put some of the worst risks to the Australian people back behind bars to protect Australians. Months later, we still haven't had any of them subjected to these orders that we approved. What is going on? The criminals who have been released continue to commit crime, yet there has not been a single action from this government to put these people back behind bars given the strong risk they pose to the Australian people. We don't even get basic knowledge of where they are around the country. We only find out in dribs and drabs, like we did just before question time today. According to the Herald Sun this afternoon, yet another one of these 149 foreign criminals has been arrested and charged with fresh sex offences. He is a 43-year-old man from Richmond who has been accused of sexual assault and stalking offences that occurred, apparently, in Richmond on Tuesday. The Australian people deserve better. There should be ministerial accountability. Those ministers should have been gone last year and definitely, given what we've seen today, should be gone today. Question agreed to. Great Barrier Reef 741 15:32 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by Senator Gallagher to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Great Barrier Reef. I appreciate that being a minister covering lots of portfolios makes it difficult, but I was very surprised that the minister didn't have a brief around reports that were in the media, that were across the media spectrum, today about a coral bleaching underway in the Great Barrier Reef. Reports were put out by James Cook University a week ago. Statements have been put out by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. And yet today the minister didn't seem to know that the single-biggest living organism on the planet, an organism you can see from space, was suffering another mass coral bleaching—a marine heatwave. And it's not a surprise. Every year our oceans are setting new record temperatures. And guess what? In February 2024, this month, they've just set another new record. Temperatures never recorded in our history were recorded in February 2024. And while we are seeing records broken all around the world on land, in our terrestrial environments—in fact, I think this week was the biggest week in climate history given how many records around the world were broken—people don't see what's going on in the ocean. Unless you dive or you're a tourism operator on the Great Barrier Reef or you're an abalone fisherman or whatever, it's out of sight, out of mind for a lot of people. The ocean is the womb of the planet. It controls our weather patterns. It is so essential for life on earth. We've seen unprecedented record-low ice levels in the Antarctic, and—also updated this week—a record loss of sea ice on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The question we need to ask ourselves is: are we doing enough to stop this rapid march of climate change and the damage it's doing to our ecosystems? The minister came in here today and said, 'We're doing what we can.' No, you're not doing what you can! The target the minister came up with from her talking lines about what the Albanese government has done on climate is nowhere near sufficient to hold us anywhere around 1½ degrees of warming—which, by some research reports, we've already exceeded. We've certainly exceeded it in Australia; we're well on the way to two degrees of warming. And our best science tells us that a two-degree warming will mean a loss of 99 per cent of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef. The decisions we make in this place can make a difference. While we have a government boasting about its climate record, which will do nothing to stop more mass coral bleachings on the Great Barrier Reef, we also see this government, just like the last government, lobbying UNESCO to not declare the Great Barrier Reef in danger. The outstanding universal values of the Great Barrier Reef are why it was declared a World Heritage treasure, and there is no-one on the planet who understands science who doesn't recognise that the outstanding universal values of the Great Barrier Reef are seriously in danger from climate change. Why do we stick our heads in the sand and try to prevent UNESCO from making this statement? That's the question I've been trying to get an answer to for over a decade in this place, but it's still ongoing. I would have thought UNESCO saying, 'You know what? The Great Barrier Reef is in danger. So are all the world's coral reefs,' might be a siren call to action, to governments and people all around the world. Half a billion people rely on coral reefs for their livelihoods, and they are disappearing—dying before our eyes. And the minister hasn't even got a briefing on the bleaching unfolding on the Great Barrier Reef. All I asked was for an update and when we might know whether this is another mass coral bleaching—by the way, the fifth in eight years and the seventh since 1998, which was the very first mass coral bleaching ever recorded in history. We need to do better. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 742 MOTIONS Rice, Senator Janet Elizabeth 742 Censure 742 15:38 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the censure of Senator Rice for engaging in unparliamentary and disrespectful conduct during the address by His Excellency Ferdinand R Marcos Jr, President of the Philippines, in the terms as circulated in the chamber. Leave not granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the censure of Senator Rice for engaging in unparliamentary and disrespectful conduct during the address by His Excellency Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr, President of the Philippines. 15:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That the question be now put. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the question be put.

The Senate divided. [15:42]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

35 AYES Askew, W. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:48 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that standing orders be suspended.

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

Question agreed to.

15:50 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That a motion relating to the censure of Senator Rice for engaging in unparliamentary and disrespectful conduct during the address by His Excellency Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr, President of the Philippines, may be moved immediately and determined without amendment. 15:50 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That the question be now put. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKim, do you have a point of order? Senator McKim JKM If I may, Deputy President, I understood that Senator Birmingham moved that it be put without amendment but not that it be put without debate. I'm just after some clarity on that because I understand that, under the terms of that motion, we can debate it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It could be debated, but then I went to the minister for the call and he just moved— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No, I appreciate that. He then moved that it be put, and he has precedence on the call. Honourable senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Order! I'm putting the question. The question before the Senate is that the question be put on a procedural motion originally moved by Senator Birmingham.

The Senate divided. [15:53]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

39 AYES Askew, W. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 11 NOES 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:57 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the procedural motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

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

Question agreed to.

16:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that during the address by His Excellency Ferdinand R Marcos Jr, President of the Philippines, Senator Rice engaged in unparliamentary and disrespectful conduct and had to be ushered out of the House of Representatives; (b) expresses its profound disapproval of Senator Rice's unparliamentary conduct; and (c) censures Senator Rice for the unparliamentary conduct, disrespect of proceedings and disregard for the importance of Australia-Philippines relations. The address to the Australian parliament by a foreign leader is a both symbolic and serious occasion. It is used by governments, both Labor and Liberal, or coalition, as a tool of statecraft and diplomacy. It is used to further Australia's national interest by strengthening Australia's relations with other nations, those relations between Australia and partner countries. The speeches given in the other place in joint sittings may be given by the leader of another nation, but the honour is one being bestowed upon that nation. Today the honour was bestowed upon the nation of the Philippines. The honour is not, never has been and never will be an endorsement of all policies and actions of that world leader, their government or even their country, but it is an opportunity to advance the common interests Australia has with that nation. The conduct of the Greens in disrupting the proceedings of joint sittings of this parliament while world leaders address them ignores these facts and undermines Australia's national interest. Repeatedly we see the Australian Greens act as a juvenile protest movement, not as responsible members of the Australian parliament. Membership of this Senate comes with both rights and responsibilities. How we exercise those rights and responsibilities matters. These are choices each of us get to make. Nobody makes the Greens attend joint sittings. There is the option for them to boycott. They don't have to walk over there and attend a joint sitting. There are ample opportunities in this chamber and for their members of the House of Representatives, in the other chamber, to speak and voice and address concerns they have, including concerns about any other country, including one who may have a leader giving a joint address. There are ample opportunities for them to peacefully protest outside of this building too. But Greens actions like those of Senator Rice this morning abuse the rights accorded to members of parliament and ignore their responsibilities. Nobody else gets to go onto the floor of the House of Representatives and act contrary to the standing orders, in a disorderly manner, and confront a world leader like the Greens do. It's against the standing orders, but they do it in abuse of the rights that they have, and they do it neglectful of their responsibilities as members of this parliament. We do not bring forward a censure motion lightly, but the coalition is firmly of the view that the behaviour of the Greens cannot be ignored, that it would be weak and irresponsible to pretend that it had never happened or to just sweep it under the carpet, because the reckless actions of the Greens are consequential. If the Greens think that their actions will change the domestic policies of another nation, well, they're even more delusional than we thought they were, but such stands, such actions, that the Greens take do impact on the perceptions of Australia and of the Australian parliament. They will weigh on the judgements of other world leaders when they receive similar invitations. Ultimately, the actions of the Greens undermine opportunities for statecraft and diplomacy by Australian governments. Whatever the colour or persuasion of those governments, the opportunities are hurt by the Greens' disrespectful, unruly and unparliamentary conduct. That is the most important aspect of concern here: the disregard the Greens show for Australia's relations and interests with another nation, in this case for the importance of Australia-Philippines relations. We heard from President Marcos this morning very clearly how crucial those relations are. We heard it also from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, and we heard it also from the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese. On all fronts it is clear that, when it comes to our interests—not just bilaterally but, critically, in cooperating for the peace, security and stability of our region—it is essential that our nations work together. Whatever the validity or otherwise of the concerns the Greens wish to raise, their actions hurt Australia's ability to act in ways that seek to underscore the peace, stability and prosperity of our region. That is why these are shameful actions. They are consequential actions because of the way they will be perceived in other countries and because of the impact they will have on the judgements made by other world leaders. It is why we believe they deserve censure by this chamber. We bring forward this motion to send a message that their actions should not be tolerated and certainly are not supported by any members of parties that seek to form government in this place. 16:06 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The action I took in the House today was deliberate and it was powerful, and I did it on behalf of every Filipino person whose human rights have been abused by the government of President Marcos and the government of President Duterte before him. I was appalled that President Marcos was given the opportunity to address our parliament today, the privilege of addressing our parliament today. As Senator Birmingham said, addressing our parliament is symbolic and it is serious. It is appalling that the President of a government responsible for human rights abuses should be invited to attend our parliament and speak to our parliament. I took this action after having discussions and correspondence with many Filipinos in Australia, the Australian coalition for human rights in the Philippines and the Australians for Philippine Human Rights Network. I did it in the context of having taken part, some years ago, in an international civil society led investigation into human rights in the Philippines, conducted by the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines, where I learnt and heard firsthand about what is going on in the Philippines. I learnt about the extrajudicial killings where people on trumped-up charges are red-tagged and then hunted down and killed; where human rights lawyers are shot at point-blank as they drive through the streets; where workers, because they have the temerity to engage in fighting for their rights, are killed; and where environmental defenders, because they have the temerity to fight for justice for their community—for their rivers not to be polluted and for their lands not to be taken from them—are killed. This is ongoing. This is why I took that action today. I'd like to read out to you today comments from Human Rights Watch, who say: Australia's Labor government should be especially concerned by the rising harassment and violence against labor leaders and union organizers in the Philippines. Albanese should urge Marcos to act to stop these abuses and thoroughly investigate recent killings. In September, police shot and killed labor leader Jude Thaddeus Fernandez at his home in the town of Binangonan in Rizal province. The officers claim Fernandez "fought back" while being served with a search warrant, without explaining why his home was being searched or why he resisted. Fernandez's colleagues told Human Rights Watch they believe police were using the commonly used defense of nanlaban (fighting back) to justify killing him. This is not an isolated occurrence. Human Rights Watch go on: Marcos's visit to Australia is an important opportunity for Australia's leaders to address well-documented human rights abuses in the Philippines. Ignoring them will only embolden Marcos and the prevailing culture of impunity. The people of the Philippines deserve more than warm words and empty rhetoric when it comes to respecting and upholding their human rights. There are at least 800 political prisoners in the Philippines at the moment—including the former head of their human rights commission, a former senator, and she has been held for about a decade now. As a senator, I felt it was my obligation and my responsibility to speak up for her, and for those prisoners, and for every person who has had their livelihood, their wellbeing and their very life put at stake and affected by this government. It is appalling, as I say, because of just what a privilege it is to address our parliament, that President Marcos was invited to do so. I am struck by having a censure motion moved against me for abusing parliamentary rights, when human rights did not rate a mention—when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in their speeches today, did not mention human rights at all. They are completely whitewashing—sycophantic towards the President. They are even trying to whitewash the legacy of Marcos's father, the former dictator Ferdinand Marcos. We cannot let these human rights abuses go unchecked. Every person having their rights impacted in the world impacts us. Human rights matter, and they matter for every person in the world. I am proud that, in this parliament, over the 10 years I've been here, I have spoken up for the human rights of people across the world, whether in the Philippines, Tibet, West Papua, Palestine or here in Australia. I will continue to do so, and I will take every opportunity open to me in this place to speak up for human rights—to speak up for people who deserve to have the right to live a peaceful life and to have their rights respected. People do not expect, in a country like Australia, where we say we value democracy, to have the president of such a human rights-abusing government speaking to our parliament. It is appalling. I am proud of what I did today—I am proud of it—and I am proud of the attention that it has drawn to the appalling situation in the Philippines. I hope that it will actually make some of you people here realise that our relationships with other countries are not just a matter of trade opportunities or military opportunities or how much we can have defence ties with them—that the relationships between the people matter, and it matters to us that we respect the rights of the people of the Philippines, not just the cronies in their government. I would do it again, and I encourage all of you to think very carefully about any relationships with any countries and being so sycophantic as to basically just whitewash over those human rights abuses. 16:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Earlier, Senator Rice held a sign during the address to the House of Representatives by the President of the Philippines, to which senators were invited. As a consequence, I am advised that the Speaker requested Senator Rice to leave, which she did. It is disappointing that Senator Rice, soon to be departing this chamber, chose to act in such a way. On that note, I move: That the question be now put. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the question be put.

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

35 AYES Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 12 NOES 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

16:21 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

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

35 AYES Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 12 NOES 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BUDGET 748 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committee 748 16:24 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present additional information received by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee relating to the following: Budget estimates 2023-24 (Supplementary)— Documents presented to the committee and additional information. COMMITTEES 748 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Legislation Committee 748 Additional Information 748 16:24 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator Sheldon, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee 748 Report 748 16:24 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I present the first report of the 47th Parliament of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme on general issues concerning the NDIS, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. What has always been a consistent theme of the NDIS committee is that it has generally tried to work in a very bipartisan way and come together in consensus over how issues need to be dealt with. That's because most of us appreciate—and most of us in this place and in the other place understand—that the NDIS is a scheme for the most vulnerable in our community. It's for Australians who will need support over their lifetime because they have permanent and lifelong disabilities. I must say that, while most of the committee's recommendations have been supported, there does seem to be an unwillingness by the majority of the committee—which is not opposition, Greens or crossbench run—to not acknowledge any shortfalls and to not outline in any way, shape or form concerns around the transparency, longevity and sustainability of the scheme and how it is going to best serve those Australians and their families who will require it into the future. It is also important to note that this inquiry had a look back over the 10 years that this committee has been in place and the recommendations that this committee has made over the last 10 years, in terms of what has adopted and what has been ignored. I think Senator Steele-John would share with me the sentiment that there are so many recommendations that have been made time and time and time again, yet the NDIA in many, many instances—if not the minister themselves—have failed to take action on these. Many of these suggestions are actually not that earth-shattering. We're not talking about fundamental shifts in the NDIS. We're talking about things like working with participants to access a draft copy of their plan so that they can then make sure that what they actually need is in it and that the disabilities that they have are appropriately recognised. It would ensure that, if there are things in there that they are not going to use, those can come out. That might blow people's minds. There's a thing on my son's plan that I'm not going to use. There's a substantial amount of money over three years that is not going to get used. I don't need it. But, if I had seen a draft plan beforehand, I would have said to them: 'Take that part out. I don't need it. I'm not going to use it.' This is a recommendation that has been made time and time and time again, yet it still seems impossible for the agency to comprehend that this is something participants are asking for and their families are asking for. This is even something that providers would be keen to see because it means that everyone has surety as they go forward over their NDIS scheme. But unfortunately, since we've seen this government come in, I have to say that I just don't get the sense that Minister Shorten is interested in it. I don't get the sense that his heart is in this. I sense that he is not really that keen. He missed out on being Prime Minister. This is the runner-up role. He's Minister Shorten, not Prime Minister Shorten. He didn't get the big prize. He ended up with the NDIS, and I feel like he is consistently expressing his disappointment in himself that he didn't quite get the gig he was actually going for. The way Minister Shorten has changed his narrative almost seems bitter, in terms of comparing how he used to talk about the NDIS when he was in opposition with how he talks now when he is the minister responsible for it. He used to talk all the time about any discussion that the coalition in government tried to have with him about ensuring that the scheme was sustainable and targeted to the people who required it, about the scheme not being misconstrued or misused and about state governments not stepping up where they should. He accused the coalition of 'pearl-clutching kabuki theatre'—fortunately, my pearls are being restrung at the moment, so I can't give you a demonstration of that—claiming that the NDIS was tracking just as predicted. We knew when we were in government that it was not the case and that it was growing exponentially faster than anyone expected, so we wanted to have conversations. We wanted to talk both as an NDIS committee and from the government's perspective—when it was a coalition government—to ensure that we could shore up the scheme and make sure it was sustainable. But ever since this government came in there has been a complete change of tune from Minister Shorten, who is now saying that he's going to cap the growth of the scheme, but he won't tell us how he is planning to do that. This is causing extraordinary angst, and this is coupled by NDIS Monday every time we come in, because those opposite refuse to provide the documents around the financial sustainability mechanism. While I am very proud to be part of this committee, to present the reports, and to acknowledge the importance of including people with a disability in the planning for their lives, ensuring that choice and control remains at the very heart of the NDIS, we need to be able to see how this financial sustainability model is going to work. But we know those opposite have very little interest in transparency. They will not be open and honest with the Australian people. This is causing unnecessary angst, and the work of our committee will continue as we seek answers to ensure that those people and their families who rely on the NDIS continue to be supported. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 16:31 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been meeting for 10 years now, and in that time it has completed 20 inquiries into the scheme. I have loved being part of this committee and having the opportunity to work with its members and the secretariat to scrutinise the policies and processes of the NDIS to make sure that they work for my fellow members of the disability community. I give special thanks and send my deepest respect to the disabled community, who have added incredible amounts of value to the committee's work over 10 years. Your knowledge, your expertise, and your lived experience of how this scheme works and how often it does not work has been invaluable to our work as a committee and has improved the quality of reports that we've been able to make to the parliament in an unparalleled way. Thank you for consistently showing up to inform us. In reflecting on what we have heard as a committee over the past 10 years, a few main points continue to emerge that still need to be genuinely addressed. It has become crystal clear to the committee that harnessing the lived experience of participants and their plan nominees—their intricate knowledge of how the NDIS operates in a critical context—is absolutely essential to being able to properly reflect in our reports and in our work the way in which the scheme needs to work for people. This means, to put it simply, that the agency needs to engage in genuine collaboration, or co-design, with participants in both defining the problems and designing the solutions, and in so doing avoiding harm to participants through policy failure which then ultimately results in additional costs to the scheme and negative impacts for participants. It is vital that participants are actually leading the co-design processes rather than just being consultants within it. The independent-assessments debacle was a shining example of government failure to engage in genuine co-design. This harmful trial should be a lesson to any decision-makers about the future of assessment and access processes. The Productivity Commission specifically recommended a needs-and-aspirations-based assessment, rather than a purely functional assessment, to identify an individual's reasonable and necessary care and support needs across a broad range of life, including their aspirations and the outcomes that they wish to achieve. This has been echoed time and time again by participants themselves, because the absence of these processes causes great distress when required supports are not funded. In 2020, the committee recommended that the NDIS: … provide fully costed, detailed draft plans to participants and their nominees at least one week prior to their meeting with an official with the authority to approve the plan. 'Draft plans'—that is such a simple change that would make a transformational difference, giving each participant the guarantee that they would actually have the opportunity to see their plan, to read it in detail, to think about it and to consider it before it is approved. My God! Nobody in this space would buy a garden shed without having the opportunity to look at it properly first, yet the agency continues, to this day, to deny participants the uniform right to see a draft plan. We are still waiting for this recommendation to be implemented, and every member of the committee will continue to press the agency to make this change. Disabled people have the right to choice and control over their lives and to be able, as necessary for them, to determine their goals. These rights are enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a convention to which Australia is a signatory and that the NDIS Act itself explicitly references, so any policies and any changes or modifications to regulations, rules or guidelines of the NDIS must be compliant and consistent with the UNCRPD. This also means making broader funding and budget changes in line with the UNCRPD. We often hear in the media about the so-called cost of the scheme. We rarely hear about its incredible benefits for disabled people, our families and our communities. The committee has often heard of those positive impacts of the scheme, but the full extent is not well understood. We need comprehensive research about the full extent of the positive impacts of the NDIS, along with the negative impacts that would occur if funding to the scheme were to be capped or reduced. The only research conducted that gives us even half of the information that we might need was commissioned by National Disability Services in 2021. This concluded that in relation to the NDIS and NDIS funding—I will quote it, and I will quote it again and again during the course of future months as we debate incoming NDIS legislation—decisions must be: … based on sound, transparent and publicly-available analysis, not made behind closed doors based on secret modelling. Now we are back once again at a moment in time under another government where such documents are being withheld from this very Senate, despite those documents having been repeatedly requested. This is despite the government winning an election partly because they pledged to the disability community that they would not repeat the same practices of secrecy so modelled by the previous coalition government. Yet week after week, month after month, the Senate returns and requests those documents and the government refuses to cough them up. The NDIS joint standing committee, its members and the disability community have a critical role in ensuring the transparency that participants and their family members need in relation to the NDIS. I will continue to play my role in this place, alongside colleagues, in ensuring that the committee plays that role and that those pieces of vital information are delivered to the public. Question agreed to. Environment and Communications References Committee 750 Government Response to Report 750 16:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I present the government response to the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on its inquiry into the impacts and management of feral horses in the Australian Alps, and I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Environment and Communications References Committee report: Impacts and management of feral horses in the Australian Alps February 2024 Introduction The Australian Government thanks the Environment and Communications References Committee for its report on the Impacts and management of feral horses in the Australian Alps, and those who contributed to the inquiry. We particularly acknowledge First Nations people who made submissions for the protection of the Australian Alps and First Nations heritage values. Feral horses are causing enormous damage to the Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves National Heritage place—an environment that is equally unique and fragile. Feral horses threaten with extinction imperilled plants, animals and unique ecological communities that are protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), and that are of cultural and spiritual value to First Nations people. Decisive action is needed to avert the extinction of these plants and animals and to ensure they can recover and prosper. This is no small task and will require all parties with management responsibility for the Australian Alps to work together and to act now. To support this response, the Australian Government is prioritising improved protection through strengthened collaboration with New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory—the primary land managers of the Australian Alps. This includes working through the recently re-established Australian Alps Ministerial Council. Recognising the Australian Alps as priority place under the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-2032, the Australian Government will provide additional funding to protect and recover threatened alpine species and ecological communities impacted by feral horses. This response has been prepared in the context of ongoing consultation and work to reform national environmental law—the EPBC Act. The Nature Positive Plan (see https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/epbc/publications/nature-positive-plan) outlines the Australian Government's commitment to strengthen and streamline Australia's environmental laws in response to the Independent Review of the EPBC Act (see https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au), undertaken by Professor Graeme Samuel AC (the Samuel Review). National Environmental Standards are the centrepiece of the reforms. The Standards will improve environmental protections and guide decision making, including matters of national environment significance (MNES) such as the Australian Alps National Heritage place, its internationally important wetlands, and nationally threatened species and ecological communities. The Australian Government has engaged with the governments of NSW, Victoria and the ACT and their relevant National Park management agencies in considering responses to the recommendations of the report. The Australian Alps Ministerial Council met on 10 November 2023 and noted the recommendations of the inquiry (see https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/australian-alps-ministerial-council- communique-10-nov-2023.pdf). Responses Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, in collaboration with its state and territory counterparts, undertake an impact and population assessment of feral horses at the national level. Response NOTED Impact and population assessments of feral horses are best conducted by relevant states and territories to ensure assessments are adapted to local priorities and procedures for feral species control. A single, national impact and population assessment of feral horses would not be feasible or effective. Instead, we will work strategically with our state and territory counterparts to build our understanding of the impacts to MNES, including the National Heritage place and susceptible threatened species at risk from feral horses, and take action at the appropriate time and scale. Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that the Minister for Environment and Water list habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral horses as a Key Threatening Process under the Environment Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999. Response AGREED IN PRINCIPLE Listing a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the EPBC Act requires that the process be formally prioritised and assessed against prescribed criteria by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC). The Minister for the Environment and Water invites public nominations for potential listing of key threatening processes under the EPBC Act each year. Eligible nominations are considered by the TSSC, and if prioritised are provided to the Minister for decision whether the TSSC undertakes a full assessment involving public and expert input. If a nomination does undergo a full assessment by the TSSC, the assessment is provided to the Minister for final decision on whether the process is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act. The Minister for the Environment and Water will write to the Chair of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee requesting that 'habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral horses' is prioritised for its consideration. Recommendation 3 The Committee recommends that, after the Key Threatening Process is in place, the Minister for the Environment issue a Threat Abatement Plan as soon as is practicable, in order to reduce the threat of feral horses in the Australian Alps. Response NOTED The recommendation for the Minister for the Environment to issue a Threat Abatement Plan is contingent on the process outlined in the response to Recommendation 2 above, and further statutory decisions and processes set out in Part 13 of the EPBC Act. Recommendation 4 The Committee recommends that in partnership with the states and territory, the Murray- Darling Basin Authority undertake work to measure, monitor and record the quality of Basin water resources in and flowing from the Australian Alps, with particular reference to the impact of feral horses. Response NOTED The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) notes this recommendation. The MDBA notes that water flowing from the Australian Alps flows into the Murray-Darling Basin and other catchments outside the Basin such as the Snowy River. Water quality monitoring in each of the Murray-Darling Basin jurisdictions is carried out by the relevant state or territory. Under existing programs managed by the MDBA, state agencies monitor several water quality parameters at two monitoring stations upstream of Hume Dam located at Jingellic and Tallandoon. However, these parameters are not suited to isolating specific impacts of feral horses on the quality of water flowing from the Australian Alps. The MDBA does not have the capacity, resources, and remit to undertake water quality monitoring to identify the impacts of feral horses on the quality of water flowing from the Australian Alps. Noting that water quality outcomes directly overlap with and exacerbate impacts to matters of national environmental significance (such as threatened species habitat), the MDBA will consult states and the territory on developing a work program to better understand the impacts of feral horses. Any implementation would be by the states and the territory. Recommendation 5 The Committee recommends that in partnership with the states and territory, the Murray- Darling Basin Authority undertake an immediate assessment of the condition of the catchment of the Hume Reservoir, with particular reference to the impact of feral horses. Response AGREED IN PRINCIPLE The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) supports this recommendation in principle. As provided in Clause 51 of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, taking measures to protect Hume Reservoir's catchment within each state is a responsibility of the respective state. This requirement is focussed on protecting the catchment from excessive erosion. The MDBA will seek the agreement of states and the territory to identify opportunities within existing catchment monitoring programs to better understand the impact of feral horses on erosion. Recommendation 6 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government take a lead role to achieve cooperation between state and territory governments in the formulation of management plans for National Heritage listed places, including in the Australian Alps National Heritage place. The Australian Government should establish agreed mechanisms to resolve disputes between jurisdictions to ensure that National Heritage values are being protected. Response AGREED The Australian Government will take a lead role in seeking cooperation between the NSW, Victorian and ACT governments to encourage consistent and complementary management plans for the entire Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves National Heritage place. Minister Plibersek has re-established the Australian Alps Ministerial Council, which now provides an ongoing forum for relevant ministers to raise and resolve disputes. Recommendation 7 The Committee recommends that the EPBC Regulations, which set out the management principles for National Heritage listed places, be amended to include reference to international obligations. Response NOTED The Australian Government notes this recommendation in the context of ongoing consultation and work to reform the EPBC Act. Recommendation 8 The Committee recommends that the National Heritage provisions of the EPBC Act be amended to include that regard must be given towards Target 6 as adopted in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Response NOTED The Australian Government notes this recommendation in the context of ongoing consultation and work to reform the EPBC Act. Recommendation 9 9a The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commission urgent monitoring to assess the current status of EPBC Act-listed species, ecological communities and migratory species in the Australian Alps. 9b Further, the Australian Government should work with the NSW, Victorian and ACT governments to urgently implement recovery plans to better protect critically endangered species such as the Stocky Galaxias and Southern Corroboree Frog. Response 9a AGREED The Australian Government will continue to provide support to the NSW, Victorian and ACT governments to monitor the status of EPBC listed species. This includes: continuing collaboration on assessment of species for potential listing as threatened species under the EPBC Act. There are currently 11 species and one ecological community found in the Australian Alps that are under assessment. Assessment includes consideration of extinction risk with regard to changes in population sizes, geographic distribution and number of mature individuals. Nominations are called annually for prioritisation of new assessments of species and ecological communities considered to be at potential extinction risk. monitoring of species and ecological communities that have been assessed as at risk of extinction and listed as threatened under the EPBC Act will be supported through new Australian Government funded projects in the Australian Alps. The Australian Alps Ministerial Council has agreed to pursue a coordinated and strategic approach to managing, protecting and enhancing the unique biodiversity, cultural and heritage values of the Australian Alps. This will include addressing threats associated with climate change and invasive species, and implementation of conservation planning for threatened species. The Australian Alps Ministerial Council will provide a forum for the NSW, Victorian and ACT governments to report on results from their monitoring. 9b AGREED The Australian Government agrees to continue to work in partnership with the NSW, Victorian and ACT governments to implement recovery plans to better protect critically endangered species such as the Stocky Galaxias and Southern Corroboree Frog. Recommendation 10 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government increase funding to the states and territory, who are the primary land managers of the Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves, to enable them to ensure National Heritage values are upheld and threatened species are protected from extinction. Response AGREED The Australian Government will provide additional funding for threatened species recovery in the Australian Alps to NSW, Victoria and the ACT. These new funds will build on significant Australian Government investments for the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities made in recent years. Recommendation 11 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government expand its partnership with FeralScan to develop a platform for the monitoring and logging of feral horses. Response AGREED IN PRINCIPLE FeralScan is hosted by the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions (CISS) and is funded by CISS members, including significant investment by the Australian Government. FeralScan is a community pest animal reporting and management tool that allows users to record pest animal activity to protect farms, biodiversity and communities. It covers multiple species including feral donkeys. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water will investigate whether CISS is able to include feral horses in FeralScan. Recommendation 12 The Committee recommends that the NSW Government update the Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan to allow the use of aerial shooting as one of the available feral horse control methods if deemed appropriate under strict safety, scientific and humane practices. Response NOTED This recommendation is addressed to the NSW Government. The NSW Government adopted an amendment to the Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan on 27 October 2023 to allow the use of aerial shooting. At the meeting of the Australian Alps Ministerial Council on 10 November 2023 the Australian, NSW, Victorian and ACT Ministers welcomed the NSW announcement on 27 October 2023 that it has adopted an amendment to the 2021 Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan for reducing the number of feral horses in the park. The amendment allows the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service to use aerial shooting in addition to existing control methods such as trapping, rehoming, and ground shooting (see AAMC Communiqué https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/australian- alps-ministerial-council-communique-10-nov-2023.pdf). Recommendation 13 The Committee recommends that the Australian Alps Liaison Committee membership include Indigenous representation, to ensure that Indigenous knowledge and culture is properly considered at each stage of its processes. Response AGREED IN PRINCIPLE It is important that appropriate ways for the views of First Nations people to be represented in the Australian Alps National Parks Cooperative Management Program be determined in cooperation with First Nations people. The Australian Government will approach the NSW, Victorian and ACT governments about the proposal for the Australian Alps Liaison Committee membership to include representation from First Nations people. The Australian Government notes that First Nations peoples involvement is a priority in the 2023-2026 Australian Alps Strategic Plan (see https://theaustralianalpsnationalparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/V-04-08-2022- Final-Draft-Word-strategic-plan-2023-2026-for-the-australian-alps-national-parks-co- operative-management-program.pdf). Recommendation 14 The Committee recommends that the NSW, Victoria and ACT Governments urgently review the safety of staff working in and around national parks, and work with local law enforcement agencies to ensure that staff are properly protected in their workplaces. Response NOTED This recommendation is addressed to the NSW, Victorian and ACT governments. The Australian Government considers the safety of staff working in and around national parks in the Australian Alps, and elsewhere in the country, to be paramount. In their submissions to the Committee inquiry all three jurisdictions expressed their strong commitment to staff safety. Coalition Senators' Dissenting Recommendations Dissenting recommendation 1 Further studies, including longitudinal studies, be undertaken using an agreed method of collection across three time periods to meet the requirements of complex statistical modelling techniques. Response NOT AGREED The Australian Government considers that the methodology for surveys is best determined by the place managers for the Australian Alps, being the NSW, Victorian and ACT parks management agencies. Through the Australian Alps Ministerial Council and Australian Alps Liaison Committee the Australian Government will continue to engage with NSW, Victorian and ACT park management agencies on the implementation and outcomes of population studies of feral horses in the Australian Alps. Dissenting recommendation 2 Further studies be undertaken on alternative options to contribute to the control and reduction of Australian brumby populations. Response NOT AGREED The Australian Government considers that the control and reduction of feral horses is best determined by the place managers for the Australian Alps, being the NSW, Victorian and ACT parks management agencies and is satisfied that a suitable range of options to contribute to the control and reduction of feral horses in the Australian Alps are being used by them. Through the Australian Alps Ministerial Council and Australian Alps Liaison Committee, the Australian Government will continue to engage with NSW, Victorian and ACT park management agencies on the options for the control of feral horses in the Australian Alps. Dissenting recommendation 3 Impact evaluation studies be conducted on the impact, both positive and negative, of Australian brumbies in the Australian Alps instead of focusing on the raw numbers. Response NOT AGREED The Australian Government's focus, as set out under the EPBC Act, relates to impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). The impact of feral horses on MNES in the Australian Alps is well evidenced and will remain our focus. Dissenting recommendation 4 Study on population of Australian brumbies be undertaken using reliable methodology with a higher rate of accuracy with evaluations after 3 and 6 years. Response NOT AGREED The Australian Government considers that the determination of reliable methodologies to quantify feral horse numbers in the Australian Alps is primarily a matter for the NSW, Victorian and ACT governments. Dissenting recommendation 5 Federal funding options be considered for the use of drones to aid in the population counts and the delivery of their management plans. Response NOT AGREED The Australian Government considers that the determination of reliable methodologies to quantify feral horse numbers in the Australian Alps is primarily a matter for the NSW, Victorian and ACT governments. The Australian Government will provide additional funding to NSW, Victoria and the ACT, building on existing funding for management and recovery work in the Australian Alps, as noted above in response to Recommendation 10 of the majority recommendations. Dissenting recommendation 6 Greater investment in developing and refining humane non-lethal methods for the reduction of numbers of Australian brumbies. Response NOT AGREED The Australian Government considers that reliable and humane lethal methods for the reduction in numbers of feral horses in the Australian Alps are required given the exceedingly high numbers of horses and the impact they are having on MNES. Dissenting recommendation 7 Support be given to the current NSW policy for number reduction as outlined in the Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan. Response AGREED IN PART The Australian Government supports the NSW Government policy to reduce the total population of feral horses across the feral horse retention management areas to 3000 horses by 30 June 2027. Should this be insufficient to avoid further irreversible damage to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and the Australian Alps, the Australian Government would seek the further reduction of horse numbers and support a zero-tolerance approach, such as that currently employed by the ACT. Dissenting recommendation 8 The Federal Government should offer the NSW Government additional funding to support control methods, provided they do not take up aerial culling. Response AGREED IN PART The Australian Government has provided the NSW government with an additional $200,000 for feral horse control in June 2023, adding to $1.1 million provided for feral horse control following the Black Summer bushfires. Future Australian Government funding for feral horse control in the Australian Alps will be contingent on the relevant state or territory having lethal horse control as a management option. Dissenting recommendation 9 Legal advice be sought regarding Commonwealth regulation-making powers and related constitutional matters under the EPBC Act. Response NOTED The Australian Government notes that legal advice was sought and received on this matter by the previous Government. The Minister for the Environment and Water has not released the legal advice consistent with the long-standing practice of successive Australian Governments not to disclose legal advice. Additional Recommendations from Senator David Pocock Additional recommendation 1 The NSW Government should urgently repeal the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Act 2018, which has been identified as presenting the biggest threat to the Australian Alps. Response NOTED This recommendation is directed to the NSW Government. Additional recommendation 2 The NSW and Victorian governments should adopt the ACT Government's zero-tolerance approach to feral horse management, to ensure that the Australian Alps are not further destroyed by feral horses. Response NOTED This recommendation is directed to the NSW and Victorian governments. Additional recommendation 3 The Australian Government should provide immediate and ongoing funding to the ACT Government in order to allow the work of feral horse monitoring and management to continue, for as long feral horses persist in Kosciuszko National Park. Response AGREED IN PART The Australian Government will provide new funding to the ACT Government for the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities in the Australian Alps. Funds will be provided on a project (non-ongoing) basis and will include monitoring of the recovery of MNES. It is yet to be determined if these funds will include monitoring of feral horse incursions or impacts of feral horses to MNES. Additional recommendation 4 Section 523 of the EPBC Act should be amended to add "the failure to act", as a definition of 'action', where the result of that failure is likely or be known to have a significant impact on a matter of national environment significant. Response NOTED The Australian Government notes this recommendation in the context of ongoing discussions and work to reform the EPBC Act. 16:40 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 756 DOCUMENTS Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 756 16:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My comments go to the Export Control Act 2020 report on livestock mortalities during export by sea for the period of 1 July 2023 to 31 December 2023. This report provides no encouragement for the Labor-Greens government, which seems to remain firm in its commitment to ban livestock export. In that campaign, much is made of the vessel MV Bahijah, which caused controversy around live exports and which has fuelled misinformation and disinformation ever since. For context, the MV Bahijah was carrying live sheep towards the Middle East in January this year and was turned back halfway due to security concerns in the Red Sea. As a result, the vessel, with its livestock, was at sea for 25 days before arriving back in WA. Due to biosecurity concerns, the livestock could not be unloaded for over a week, yet veterinarians from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry were sent onboard to join the exporter's own veterinarian to check on the animals' condition and provide an independent opinion. Their report indicated no health or welfare concerns, and it was specified that, contrary to public reports, no livestock were required to be offloaded for health reasons. Supplies and replenishments were sent onboard to ensure the ongoing health and welfare of the livestock. As part of this saga, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the RSPCA—an organisation I have called out repeatedly—described the allegedly horrific conditions these animals were subject to on the vessel. Yet the RSPCA had no evidence whatsoever since no-one from the RSPCA visited the MV Bahijah, and the animal activists' own drone footage showed clean animals sitting in fresh bedding. The truth of the matter is that, while docked in Western Australia, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry filed reports which were updated frequently. During the entire procedure, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, veterinarians and biosecurity officers were onboard, ensuring that requirements were met and that the animals were kept in good condition. The Australian Livestock Exporters Council's chief officer said that, on the MV Bahijah, animal welfare was in fact 'exemplary'—a remark which DAFF, the department, independently verified. It's evident here that the misleading claims used to push for the ban on livestock export are based on nothing but deliberate misinformation. They want to capture people's love for animals. But don't be fooled. That's not what they care about. It should come as no surprise that activist organisations levy people's compassion, fuelled using false information and blatant lies in a marketing campaign to generate donations. This is their primary funding model—outrage for profit, if you will. So let's talk about mortality. The shipboard mortality rate for livestock export for the first half of 2023 was found to be just 0.14 per cent—on par with the record lows of 2022—while it stood at an average of 0.17 for the second half. That amounts specifically to a loss of 378 sheep out of 155,776 sheep. These are fairly low numbers when compared to the 4.9 per cent annual average mortality on land, as pointed out in Meat & Livestock Australia's final report of 2018, page 2. On the MV Bahijah, the mortality rate was 0.45 per cent, which is 64 sheep, which is actually under—under—the reportable mortality levels. It must be remembered: the slightly higher mortality rate is attributable to the fact that the livestock were subject to a month at sea and then a week docked in WA in a heatwave. That set of conditions is not the norm; it's highly unusual. Australia's current regulation of live exports is world's best practice. Supervision of those standards is world's best practice. More importantly, Australian standards are being extended to cover the countries to which these animals are being exported, to ensure end-to-end humane treatment. A tangible example can be found in our exports to Vietnam, where animal welfare practices have been brought in line with Australia's world-leading standards. Health certificate protocols are currently being negotiated with the livestock import industries in Morocco, in Iran and in Iraq. There's no reason to destroy an entire industry and, with it, rural communities and hardworking and caring Australian farmers. Let's not repeat the mistake made under the previous Labor government, who, in 2011, shattered— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Roberts, your time has expired. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 16:47 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise to speak on the same matter, and I thank Senator Roberts for taking notice of this document. It is very clear that Australia has the highest standards of animal welfare in the transportation of animals, and in other areas, in the world. It's very clearly demonstrated by the MV Bahijah incident that those animal welfare standards can be maintained even in the face of the decision, in this case, to turn around a boat and bring it back to the port of Fremantle. In fact, this is an exemplary example of the industry actually dealing with a serious issue in a way that takes into account the highest standards of animal welfare, and I congratulate those in the industry involved. The statistics that are revealed in this particular document show that Australia's animal welfare standards are the highest in the world and that the live export industry in fact delivers outcomes that are quite extraordinarily positive and continuing to get better—and not just over a short period of time. You can take these statistics back to the 1980s, and you can see that animal welfare standards have been improving throughout that period of time. Now, some people—in particular, the minister—want to claim that the industry is in decline, and certainly the industry did shrink on the back of successive government regulatory decisions, but that is actually not an industry in decline. In fact, we have at the moment a live export industry in sheep, predominantly from my home state of WA, which is actually growing. We've seen renewed interest from Saudi Arabia, which has now joined the ESCAS, and therefore has improved its own animal welfare system as a result. As I've said in this place on many occasions, Australia does not merely export live animals; we export animal welfare standards. By exporting those animal welfare standards we actually improve conditions for animals that weren't just raised in Australia but raised around the world. When an abattoir improves its animal welfare handling practices, it doesn't just do it for Australian sheep and cattle; it does it for all sheep and cattle that are handled through that facility. By exporting animals, we're actually exporting the highest standards in the world to other jurisdictions, and that's something that should never be forgotten. In this country, we see an extreme amount of disinformation and misinformation coming from the radical animal welfare groups. I've talked in this place about Animals Australia before, and I've talked about the RSPCA before. It is with a very heavy heart that I have to label the RSPCA a radical animal activist group, but that is what they've become. Their business model is now like Animals Australia's business model. They produce donations off the back of footage of animal cruelty. There is ample evidence on the public record that animal cruelty is being paid for. Large sums of money were exchanged in relation to the footage procured from the Awassi Express. The Awassi Express has been cited by this minister, the minister in this Labor government, as one of the reasons for the banning of the live-export trade. We have a direct link between Animals Australia and the procurement through large amounts of money of footage of cruelty, which is then used to raise more money. This is a business model that should not be able to be practised in this country. It is a disgrace. The fact that Animals Australia still has a privileged relationship with the department of agriculture is also a disgrace, and it should be stopped at the earliest possible opportunity. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Department of Health and Aged Care 758 16:52 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The annual report of the Department of Health and Aged Care details all the parliamentary committee inquiries that the department participated in last year. One of those inquiries was the inquiry into assessment and support services for people with ADHD. The ADHD inquiry was long overdue and extremely well engaged with by the ADHD community, despite the significant barriers that they had to overcome to engage with the submission process. This inquiry received over 700 submissions, had over 70 witnesses and was able to hold public hearings in three locations across the country. It examined topics such as the barriers to assessment and diagnosis, access to treatment, ADHD under the NDIS, and ADHD in the workplace, in education and in custodial settings. People with ADHD, their families, their advocates and healthcare professionals that support them came together to provide a mountain of compelling evidence to the government. As the annual report states, this evidence was supported by contributions from the federal health department, and state and territory health departments also provided updates. It couldn't be clearer from the findings of the inquiry that there is a lot of work to be done across government departments and sectors to address the significant issues, discrimination and barriers to support that ADHDers all across the country are experiencing right now. It also could not be clearer that this work is urgent. The government—in fact, all governments—is expected to provide a response to inquiry reports within three months of them being tabled within the Senate. The ADHD report is no different. Three months have come and three months have gone, and the government has still not delivered a response. No response is in sight. It is very disappointing to see the government missing its own deadline on this. It feels rather ironic—rather pointed—because ADHDers, a group of people who by the nature of their disability can struggle immensely to meet deadlines, managed to get their work in on time, while the government did not get their work in on time, despite having every possible advantage and resource at their disposal, especially when we know for a fact that many of the ADHDers who participated in this inquiry did struggle immensely with the inaccessibility of different aspects of the Senate inquiry process. With this in mind, it is not just disappointing that three months have passed without a response; it is disrespectful to the community. It is not good enough. Deliver your responses as you said that you would. We have got work to do, and we cannot do it until you hold up your end of the bargain. Question agreed to. Consideration 758 COMMITTEES 759 COMMITTEES Consideration 759 DOCUMENTS 759 DOCUMENTS Department of Health and Aged Care 759 Order for the Production of Documents 759 16:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the Aged Care Taskforce. Department of Defence 759 Order for the Production of Documents 759 16:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the Department of Defence and KPMG. Attorney-General's Department 759 Order for the Production of Documents 759 16:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table a document relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. 16:57 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Department of Finance 759 Order for the Production of Documents 759 16:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table a document relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the Digital Transformation Agency. 16:57 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Services Australia 759 Order for the Production of Documents 759 16:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning Services Australia. 16:57 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Services Australia 759 Order for the Production of Documents 759 16:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning Services Australia. 16:57 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I move: That the Senate takes note of the documents. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 760 COMMITTEES Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee, Treaties Joint Committee 760 Membership 760 16:58 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 16:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs — Joint Standing Committee Appointed—Senator Ghosh Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee — Discharged—Senator Ciccone Appointed— Senator Ghosh Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Shoebridge for the committee's inquiry into the Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024 Participating members: Senators Ciccone and Shoebridge Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee — Discharged—Senator Polley Appointed— Senator Ghosh Participating member: Senator Polley Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation — Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator White Appointed—Senator O'Neill Treaties — Joint Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator O'Neill Appointed—Senator Ghosh Question agreed to. BILLS 760 BILLS Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024, Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 760

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024

First Reading 760 16:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 760 16:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— AUTONOMOUS SANCTIONS AMENDMENT BILL 2024 Australia's autonomous sanctions framework is a critical tool of foreign policy which the government uses to demonstrate to the world that we will not tolerate human rights abuses, flouting of the international rules-based order, and the undermining of international peace and security. In a challenging global environment, with new and emerging situations of international concern, sanctions are a potent tool to reinforce the values to which Australia ascribes. Australia's sanctions are a highly targeted and effective. Through the imposition of travel bans and targeted financial sanctions, we hold actors to account for their egregious behaviour, and prevent illegal activity by imposing costs on those who transact with them. Australia's sanctions framework provides the Government with the ability to respond quickly and flexibly with our international partners to apply sanctions, exert pressure and effect change across the world. Since being elected in May 2022, as of 12 February 2024, this Government has been decisive in imposing nearly 500 sanctions under the autonomous sanctions framework for a range of matters including flagrant human rights violations, nuclear proliferation, significant cyber attacks and threats to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries. We have demonstrated our leadership in imposing autonomous sanctions on 190 individuals and 102 entities in connection with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, including those linked to Iran's provision of drones to Russia, and human rights abuses against Russian opposition figures. We have sanctioned 40 individuals and 20 entities for their involvement in the oppression of women and girls in Iran, and the violent crackdown on protesters since protests began on 16 September 2022. We have sanctioned 29 individuals and 69 entities for their involvement in the nuclear and missile programs of Iran and North Korea, and for their destabilising activities in the region. We have also imposed sanctions on 16 individuals and 7 entities responsible for the coup d'état and ongoing repression and violence in Myanmar and for providing funding to the military regime. Recently, we have also imposed Australia's first ever autonomous cyber sanction on an individual for their role in the compromise of the Medibank Private Network in 2022. In the face of an increasing need to respond to situations of international concern, it is necessary to ensure that Australia's autonomous sanctions framework is robust and clear. The Bill will help us do this. The Bill amends the Autonomous Sanctions Act to remove any possibility of doubt that individuals or entities can be validly sanctioned based on their past conduct or status. Imposing sanctions based on past conduct or status is an effective way to reinforce the message that actions have consequences, not only to the individual or entity targeted, but to others now and in the future. The Bill also clarifies the validity of sanctions listings that rely on the Minister's discretion to impose sanctions. In doing so, the Bill provides certainty and transparency to the Australian community, so that they can effectively comply with sanctions laws. I commend the Bill to the chamber. COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (FAIR GO FOR CONSUMERS AND SMALL BUSINESS) BILL 2024 One of the summer's box office hits is Wonka—the prequel to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Without giving too much away, it's the tale of how Willy Wonka takes on the chocolate cartel of Slugworth, Fickelgruber and Prodnose. Between them, the cartel controls the chocolate market. Prices are kept high. Innovators are kept out. Big chocolate has the police in its pocket, and is willing to use every bitter trick to preserve its sweet control over the market. For many Australian consumers, Wonka will resonate. Over recent years, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has taken action against anti-competitive behaviour in pharmaceuticals, finance, waste disposal and building construction. When so-called competitors collude, the public pays the price. As Wonka vividly shows, a lack of competition isn't just bad for consumers—like the chocolate-loving public. It's also bad for innovators, such as a new entrepreneur who uses giraffe milk. In the Australian economy, robust competition has been a major driver of economic growth. During the early-1990s, competition reforms helped unleash a surge of dynamism in the economy, leading to a rapid increase in productivity. Wage growth followed, and the income of the typical Australian household rose by around $5000. Whether it is airlines, telecommunications, supermarkets, franchisees getting an unfair deal, or small businesses' cash flows suffering due to slow payments, we have seen too many examples of consumers and small businesses not getting a fair go. Competition brings out the best from our companies. Innovation is more likely to emerge when firms test themselves against competitors, not when a monopolist dominates the market. Uncompetitive markets aren't just bad for growth, they're bad for fairness too. When consumers lack choice, prices tend to be higher and service levels tend to be lower. When big business can push around small suppliers, consumers suffer as well. When workers lack choice, wages tend to be lower. Uncompetitive markets hurt the most vulnerable and worsen inequality. If you don't have a car, it's harder to shop around for the best deal. If getting a fair price from your supplier involves an annual phone call, then the well-heeled are more likely to make the call. It's no accident that payday lenders and door-to-door water cooler salespeople tend to proliferate in low-income communities. Over recent decades, the problem of market concentration in Australia has become worse. Market concentration has risen. In 2001-02, the market share of the largest four firms averaged 41 per cent. By 2018-19, this figure had risen to 43 per cent. Price markups have swelled. Meanwhile, the number of new firms with employees has fallen, at least as a share of the total pool of businesses. These declines in market dynamism have coincided with a lousy period for productivity. In the decade before Labor took office, Australia recorded our worst productivity performance in the post-war era. Real wages flatlined. And because earnings are the main source of income for most households, real household income growth was painfully sluggish. In 1992, Prime Minister Paul Keating tasked competition expert Fred Hilmer to lead reforms that would collaborate across federal, state and territory governments to boost competition. In themselves, many of the reforms were small. In one case, a state law that banned bakers from starting their ovens before a particular hour in the morning was abolished. But by focusing attention on competition, the reforms added up. Assessing their impact in 2005, the Productivity Commission concluded that National Competition Policy had been a major driver of the 1990s' surge in productivity. That analysis estimated a permanent increase of 2.5 per cent in Australia's national income from competition reform. Today, that lift equates to around $50 billion a year, or around $5000 per household. The challenges the Australian economy faces today are different from those of a generation ago. We need to make the most of artificial intelligence and digitalisation. It's vital to support the net zero transformation. We need to ensure that workers aren't unfairly prevented from shifting to a better job. And we must look after the most vulnerable. Since coming to office, the Albanese government has been hard at work examining Australia's competition law and policies. We have increased the penalties for breaches of competition and consumer law. It is hard for small businesses to compete if larger companies use sneaky tactics to try to dominate the market. That's why Labor increased penalties for corporations engaging in anti-competitive behaviour from $10 million to $50 million, ensuring the price for misconduct is high enough to deter unfair activity. We have strengthened protections against unfair contract terms to help level the playing field in negotiations between big corporations and both small businesses and consumers. These reforms gave regulators the power to seek a court penalty for businesses that include unfair terms in standard form contracts. Small businesses and consumers often lack the resources and bargaining power to negotiate contracts, and previous laws against unfair terms did not provide adequate protections. While big businesses previously only risked an unfair term being declared void, our stronger protections means that businesses can now face substantial penalties for using unfair terms and therefore will be more motivated to ensure their contracts are fair. We have appointed former competition minister Dr Craig Emerson to lead a review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, to ensure that the supermarket sector is working as it should. With many families feeling the squeeze, it's vital that Australians pay fair prices at the checkout and suppliers get a fair price for their products. Dr Emerson will bring his wisdom and compassion to this vital area of economic reform. We have directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to investigate pricing and competition in the supermarket sector to ensure Australians are paying a fair price for their groceries. The inquiry, the first of its kind in over a decade, will investigate the competitiveness of retail prices and allegations of price gouging in the supermarket sector. It's an important part of the Government's broader efforts to boost competition and put downward pressure on the price of essentials for Australians. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will produce an interim report in 2024 and final report in early 2025 which will provide the Government with findings and recommendations. We have agreed to deliver respected consumer group CHOICE with funding to provide price transparency and comparison reports on a quarterly basis for three years. Starting from the second quarter of 2024, CHOICE will provide shoppers with better information on the comparative costs of grocery goods at different retailers, highlighting those charging the most and the least. The provision of this information will empower Australian consumers to make informed choices about food and grocery purchases. We have established Competition Taskforce located in the Commonwealth Treasury, to foster greater dynamism in the economy. Staffed by a crack team of competition experts, the Taskforce's role is to produce practical policies that will boost competition and help fuel innovation and wage growth. We need to ensure our competition policy settings are fit for purpose in the face of the big shifts underway in our economy, so we can make the most of digitalisation, the growth in services, the net zero transformation, while supporting our nation's most vulnerable. The review will look at competition laws, policies and institutions to ensure they remain fit for purpose, with a focus on reforms that would increase productivity, reduce the cost of living and boost wages. Among the Competition Taskforce's first priorities is to look at Australia's merger laws. When big firms join forces, the resulting entity has better economies of scale, which gives it the potential to benefit consumers. But if it wields significant market power, it can also drive up prices. At a time when many other countries are reviewing their merger codes, it's only sensible to consider whether Australia's laws need an update. The Taskforce is also examining 'non-competes' and related clauses that restrict workers from shifting to a better-paying job. According to a recent survey, one in five workers has a clause in their employment contract that makes it harder for them to move to a better job. These 'non-compete clauses' used to apply only to well-heeled corporate executives, but in recent years, they're being used to prevent early childhood workers and hairdressers from switching firms. When employees have fewer choices of where to work, they're less likely to earn a fair return for their labour. We will have more to say on restraint of trade clauses in the coming months. More competition means better prices, which is why Labor committed to establishing a 'designated complaints' function within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 delivers on this commitment, with designated complainants being able to raise significant or systemic complaints with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission from July 2024. Consumer and Small Business advocates have expressed the need for a consumer complaints framework that allows certain designated entities to bring evidence of significant or systemic market issues to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for consideration. In cases of significant or systemic market issues affecting consumers and small business, it is often consumer and small business advocates who play an important role bringing publicity and attention to governments, policy makers and the community on serious and systemic issues impacting Australians. This Bill provides the framework to empower designated consumer and small business advocates to bring forward evidence of significant or systemic market issues to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for a response in a timely and transparent way. A range of entities may apply to the Minister to be approved as a designated complainant, including a corporation, an individual, or an unincorporated association. This provides an opportunity for entities that represent the interests of consumers or small businesses in Australia to become designated complainants, regardless of the entity type. Upon receiving a designated complaint, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be required to assess the complaint and notify the designated complainant within 90 days of any action they intend to take. If the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission proposes to act on a designated complaint, they must commence that action as soon as practicable and within 6 months. Any response by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be based on their existing powers and functions under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and may include education, research, compliance and enforcement functions, or a combination. The designated complaints function will promote transparency and accountability, with the Minister and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission being required to publish certain information on the Department of the Treasury or Australian Competition and Consumer Commission website. During stakeholder consultations a number of consumer and small business advocates have indicated that they support the establishment of a designated complaints function within the ACCC. Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to 14 May 2024, in accordance with standing order 111. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Help to Buy Bill 2023, Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 763

Help to Buy Bill 2023

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

First Reading 763 17:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 764 17:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech es read as follows— HELP TO BUY BILL 2023 "Sold". It's just a four-letter word, but for so many Australians it means much more. Whether it's said at an auction or a sticker stuck on a real estate sign, "sold" and the purchase of a home is life changing. "Sold" means the start of new beginnings. And new memories. "Sold" means new neighbours. It means the start of a new community. And of course, for so many "sold" is about family. A family home. Even as our society has changed so rapidly, the family home has remained the backdrop to the best days of so many Australians. Summers spent crowded around the outdoor barbie. Late nights playing backyard cricket in the fading light. Pencilled walls where siblings jostle to mark growing height. The messy kitchen table which becomes a makeshift study for homework and school projects. The family home is in the books we read. The shows we watch. And the songs we love. And while the dream lives on in our culture, the reality is home ownership has slipped out of reach for too many Australians. But we want to help change that. The statistics tell us the story. Home ownership rates between generations have decreased significantly over recent decades, particularly for lower income households. The average time to save for a deposit for a house on a median income now exceeds a decade. Our Government understands the seriousness of this issue which is why we have already acted. We know it will take a suite of measures to help bring home ownership back into reach for more Australians and that's exactly what we're doing. We committed to the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee before the last election. And delivered it three months early in October last year. This Guarantee has already helped more than 13,000 people across Australia into home ownership. We expanded eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme from July 1 this year to help more Australians purchase a home through the scheme. And under our Government we've already been able to help more than 86,000 people across Australia into home ownership through this Scheme. We also know we need to build more homes of every type to help bring home ownership back into reach. That's why we made the $3 billion New Homes Bonus available to states that exceed their Housing Accord targets and help to build 1.2 million well-located homes from 1 July next year. This is backed by a new $500 million Housing Support Program. We've taken action already, but we know there is more work to do. And so today we take another important step forward to bring home ownership back into reach for more Australians. Today we are introducing legislation to make Help to Buy a reality. The Help to Buy scheme is an important part of our Government's ambitious housing reform agenda. Help to Buy won't just be a leg up to help Australians into home ownership. It will provide long-term relief for participants in the scheme. It will be the first national shared equity scheme of its kind. Help to Buy will be delivered through Housing Australia and will assist Australians to overcome both the hurdle of saving for a deposit and servicing a mortgage. Through Help to Buy, the Commonwealth will cut the cost of buying a home by up to 40 per cent. Participants will only require a minimum 2 per cent deposit and will benefit from lower ongoing mortgage repayments through a smaller home loan. States will need to pass legislation to participate in Help to Buy. At National Cabinet in August, all states agreed to progress Help to Buy legislation so that the scheme can run nationally. Housing Ministers from across the country have recommitted to this agreement. We are taking action now with the introduction of this legislation to help to ensure the Government is in the best position to make this support available to Australians once at least one state passes legislation to participate. We will continue to work closely with State and Territory governments on the rollout of the scheme. The Bill sets out that Help to Buy will be delivered by Housing Australia. Eligible participants will be able to access the scheme through participating lenders alongside a standard mortgage. Housing Australia will then provide the Commonwealth's equity contribution through a loan arrangement secured against the property. Housing Australia will be funded by a special appropriation to enter into Help to Buy arrangements and will provide a return to the Commonwealth when the equity is repaid. The Minister for Housing will provide written directions to Housing Australia on the operation of the scheme, including decision-making criteria for entering into Help to Buy arrangements. This is a similar approach to other Government programs, like the Home Guarantee Scheme. The Bill also includes the administrative framework for Help to Buy, including that Housing Australia must report to the Minister on an annual basis, the Minister must cause a review of Help to Buy as soon as possible after the end of three years from the commencement of the Bill, and that regulations for Help to Buy may enable administrative review of Housing Australia's decisions under the program. There is also a general power to make regulations that are required or permitted by the Bill or are necessary or convenient to give effect to the Bill. The Bill contains provisions enabling states to pass legislation for their constituents to participate in the scheme. Help to Buy will be open to assist people who have owned homes before and those who haven't. It will help couples, siblings and singles alike. Those who are close to retirement, those just starting out in the workforce and anyone eligible in between. Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. This is an ambitious Government, committed to a housing agenda that will improve housing affordability and supply. This is a government that has already created the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, the single biggest investment to support social and affordable housing in more than a decade. A government that has provided $2 billion to state and territory governments to deliver around 4,000 new social homes. A government that unlocked $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, with homes under construction across the country. And a government that has invested an additional $1 billion in this Facility to support more homes. A government that has delivered the largest increase in Commonwealth Rent Assistance in 30 years, which is already making a difference. A government that wants to ensure more Australians have a roof over their heads through a new National Housing and Homelessness Plan. A government that acts. Today we take another step forward. Because this Government understands what buying a house means to Australians. It's giving Australians the certainty of home ownership. An opportunity to live in their community and the chance to create opportunities for their families. We know what a difference this makes. For Australians like Abbey and Corhan who were amongst the first to benefit from our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. When they purchased their home through the Guarantee it meant they could spend Christmas in a new home with their young son McKinnon. To quote Corhan, "It really did help". We want more Australians to have this opportunity, which is exactly what Help to Buy will deliver. To open the door of home ownership to tens of thousands of Australians. Delivering on Help to Buy, alongside our other housing commitments, will mean more Australians will have a safe and affordable place to call home. It's what drives our Government, every day. Our ambitious housing reform agenda is working across the board: More help for homebuyers; More help for renters; and More help for Australians needing a safe place for the night. Our Government is working hard every day. To help Australians facing housing challenges. And today we do more. HELP TO BUY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2023 This Bill makes consequential amendments to support the establishment of the Help to Buy scheme, to clarify how it interacts with the Housing Australia Act 2018 and to reflect the broader remit of Housing Australia. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to 16 April 2024, in accordance with standing order 115(3). Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 766

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023

Returned from the House of Representatives 766 MOTIONS 766 MOTIONS Taxation 766 17:01 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That the Senate expresses its concern at the Albanese Labor Government's announced family car and ute tax that will drive up the cost of new cars by up to $25,000 and the cost of living for not only the people of Dunkley, but all Australians. It is a shocking indictment of the government that they have constantly told us they're going to do something about the cost of living, do something about the pressures that Australians face, yet they continue to simply bring in more and more taxes on the Australian people. One of the most pernicious ones they are introducing at the moment is a new car tax, a new tax and credit scheme that will apply to the purchasers of all cars in this country, which the car industry themselves say will push up car prices in Australia by thousands of dollars, indeed tens of thousands of dollars, for some of the most popular cars sold in this country. Why is it that the government, who say they are focused on the cost of living, are imposing this unnecessary, aggressive reduction in emission limits for Australian cars which will only make things harder for Australian families? I will take a little time to explain to people what the government is proposing here. They are proposing that new limits be set for the carbon dioxide emissions that come out the tailpipes, they say, of cars sold in this country. They want to reduce those limits by just over 60 per cent over the next five years alone. This is the world's most aggressive emission-limit program that has ever been introduced. The government constantly say, 'The United States has a program like this, and there hasn't been a big impact on the availability of cars or the price of cars there, so there won't be here.' But the devil, of course, is going to be in the detail. It's not enough just to point to another country and say, 'They have a scheme that's similar to ours, and therefore our scheme will be fine.' What if your scheme is much more stringent than theirs? What if the penalties for breaching that scheme are much higher? What happens then? That's where we have to go to the detail which the government are refusing to release. They've refused an order of this chamber to produce the modelling behind the scheme. They're refusing to go through any of the details and respond to the industry's claims with any form of detail. Their ministers don't seem to be across the actual calculations that are behind the industry estimates. So it is important to go through some of those calculations, which are actually quite simple and not hard to explain. But the government won't even engage on that level of detail. One of the most popular cars sold in Australia last year—I think it was the second most popular last year—was the Toyota HiLux. A lot of people buy a Toyota HiLux as a family vehicle these days. It has a tray in the back, but you can fit a family of four in there as well—and, of course, a lot of tradespeople have to use these vehicles just to do their jobs. That vehicle, the Toyota HiLux, emits 188 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre. The government wants to reduce these limits by about 60 per cent. After five years, by 2029, the prescribed limit will be 81 grams per kilometre for the Toyota HiLux. That Toyota HiLux will therefore be 107 grams over the limit, and the government wants to apply a penalty of $100 per gram. It's very simple: 107 times $100 is $10,700. A $10,700 cost will be imposed on the second most popular car in this country. The government says there's a similar scheme in the US. But, if you actually look at the US scheme, which I don't know whether the government has done, the US scheme is not actually based on carbon emissions. The efficiency measure is based on gallons per mile—but we'll leave that to one side. The US scheme over the last five years—the same time frame the government wants—has reduced efficiency limits by only 25 per cent. That is half of what the government is proposing to do. So this scheme is already twice as aggressive as what the US has. On top of that, the fine that has been applied in the US scheme is a third of that A$100 fine in equivalent terms. We're proposing a scheme that doubles the efficiency obligations on car manufacturers and penalises them triple what they have to pay if they exceed those limits. No wonder our local industry is concerned. No wonder Toyota themselves came out yesterday and expressed serious concerns about the availability and price impacts this will have on the Australian vehicle market. We must remember, of course, that we are a relatively small market here in this country. Some manufacturers simply may not supply cars if there is such a price impact to doing so. They might not be able to sell them if they have to charge an extra $10,000. We learnt this week as well that Ford were actually considering pulling out of Australia when they ceased manufacturing vehicles here. That was not because of any tax scheme but simply because we were a small market and they thought it might not be worth their while to bother being in this country. We've got to be a bit careful here in thinking that we are somehow protected from the competitive pressures that occur around the world. If we impose this kind of scheme without getting across the detail, there may be really perverse impacts on Australian families and Australian businesses who need these vehicles to do their jobs. When these figures were put to the government in Senate estimates, they did not dispute the figures themselves. They simply said that car manufacturers would adjust the cars they put up for sale. Those are the words of the departmental officials: they will adjust the cars that are available for sale. That means that the Australian people will have to adjust the cars they buy. This is a scheme which will tell Australians what cars they can buy and what cars they can drive around in. For some businesses, this scheme will limit their ability to go about their job, to earn a living for their family, because there simply aren't the cars available that have emissions below these limits. There are no battery vehicles that can replace a car like the Ford Ranger in a usable way right now. There are some vehicles in the US that are trying to do this, some utes like the Ford F-150 Lightning. They're being pulled off the market right now. The demand in the US has not been strong. Ford are actually losing thousands of dollars per vehicle sold. They lost A$4.5 billion selling the Ford F-150 Lightning over the last couple of years. In New Zealand, these vehicles have been taken off the market completely. There is not a market for them. The market is not ready and the technology is not ready. There's no point in our country going too far beyond this and imposing an unnecessary cost on the Australian people. You've got to wonder why the government are doing this. Why are they doing this? There seems to be a level of cultural cringe against people who just want to drive a big vehicle in this country. As I said, some people have to do it, but other families just choose to. They want a big vehicle for the safety aspects, for large families, to be able to use a ute on their weekends to clear their gardens, and to do basic things in life. Maybe they'll sometimes tow a caravan or a horse float to enjoy the wonderful country we live in and the opportunities it provides the people who live here. This is a tax that could fundamentally change the Australian way of life. We have a way of life that allows us to enjoy the outdoors, to go off-road or go and drive on the beach where I am. Lots of people love to go up to Five Mile Beach and drive along there. That won't be possible in an EV. You've got to drive a long way to get there. You could get bogged. You could get stranded. You don't want to do it in an EV. People need a car to do that, to enjoy themselves. What is wrong with that? Of course, none of this in and of itself is going to save the planet; indeed, this scheme is so naive and flawed that it looks only at so-called tailpipe emissions. It penalises only vehicles that have high carbon emissions out of the tailpipe. It doesn't factor in the fact that electric vehicles have a lot more carbon emissions in their construction. A report by Volvo just a few years ago showed that in our type of electricity system, which is still dominated by fossil fuels, you would have to drive an electric car charged in our system for about 10 years before it would become carbon positive, compared to its equivalent internal combustion vehicle. In all likelihood, then, promoting electric vehicles while we have a fossil fuel system will actually increase carbon emissions, not decrease them, because most people don't hold on to their cars for 10 years or more. It is completely and utterly absurd. The government have clearly not done the work for this scheme. They have not taken the time or had the diligence to sit down and go through the figures properly. This belies their promise that, somehow, they are focused on the cost-of-living pressures facing Australians. They must go back to the drawing board. The Biden administration is doing that. It is true—I'll give the government their due—that the Biden administration had proposed to cut its emission limits by an amount similar to what the government has chosen for the next five years. That's not in recent times, so you can't use the evidence of the US today to judge its impact, but in the future the Biden administration was going to do something similar. That was the government's justification for their limits. The problem with the government's argument is that, since they announced this policy, the Biden administration have backed down. They're going to withdraw that particular regulation. They're doing so because manufacturers in the US raised issues, just as manufacturers here in Australia are doing, and the Biden administration have listened to the manufacturers in the US and changed tack. The government must do the same here. If they don't, it is clear they do not actually care about Australians' cost of living. They are simply on an obsessive pursuit to chase Greens preferences and to try to single-handedly change the temperature of the globe. It will be only the Australian people who suffer if they continue on this obsessive route. 17:12 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This Labor government is maintaining the tradition of Labor governments: taxing and spending, taxing and spending. In the last few weeks, the government has revealed plans to tax clothing in the name of saving the environment and to tax food in the name of funding Australia's world-leading biosecurity. I would have thought protecting Australia's biosecurity, which underpins $100 billion in export earnings, was the responsibility of the whole country, considering the wealth it bestows on all Australians. I would consider funding biosecurity to be important to protecting the supply of food we all eat, but, no, this government wants to tax farmers off the land to make way for its billionaire mates' Frankenstein foods. It doesn't matter that Australians don't want to eat bugs or fake meat cultured and then grown in bioreactors. This attack on Australia's health and nutrition is happening because this government's owners demand for themselves the wealth currently in the hands of our farming communities. They want to transfer the land and the wealth from our farmers to their billionaire parasitic friends. When the billionaires that try to run the world say, 'You'll own nothing and be happy,' amongst the things the public will no longer own is a car. Chris Bowen MP and his ministry of misery have announced fuel emission standards are being applied to new cars from 2030. 'Increased fuel emission standards', 'tougher fuel emission standards'—it sounds innocuous until you read the fine print, and I thank the opposition for crunching the numbers. Utes will go up by between $2,000 and $6,000 each. At a time when the government need as many tradies as they can find to build as many homes as they can, the government think it's a smart move to add a new tax on tradies, raising the cost of houses and decreasing the supply of houses. What a bloody stupid idea! More troubling is the increasing cost of passenger cars to Australian families. The Outlander from Mitsubishi—that's a family SUV—will go up by $4,000. LandCruisers, owned by every second family in the bush, will go up by $13,000 each. That's yet another attack on the bush from a government happy to harm the bush in order to win votes back from the teals in the city. This will not be the only price increase in cars. The materials needed for our suicidal net zero measures have much in common with materials used in making cars. The increase in demand from net zero means that these materials are getting scarcer and scarcer and much more expensive. A family car is likely to rise in price by $10,000 within five years in today's dollars because of this materials inflation. Then add Minister Bowen's car tax, and you can see where this is all going. For those who still haven't worked it out, the New South Wales government has just announced Australia's first 30-minute city, surrounding the new Badgerys Creek airport. It's called Bradfield City. It will be 'cybersmart and digitally led'. That means digital surveillance on everyone. It's happening in London already, and in other countries, with commercial and community facilities including retail, cultural facilities and work all in the one suburb. So you don't have choice of where you work; you work nearby. Plans for Bradfield City include car-free streets. No matter the weather, you will walk everywhere. On the way to net zero the cost of driving will be artificially increased to raise costs, thanks to this government. That would dramatically increase the cost of living for everyone in this country, increase food prices for everyone in this country and ultimately lead to, in 2030, the very act of driving being an act of civil disobedience. It's all about wealth transfer to their parasitic billionaire friends and about control. 17:16 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia We've heard significant detail of the new tax on heavy vehicles, on four-by-fours, on SUVs and on utes, and we've heard about some of the impacts that will have. I want to go through a comparison, but first I want to take you to where my heart lies, and that's in the bush. Utes and four-by-fours are the tools of the trade in the bush; they're not an optional extra. You need a ute; you need a four-by-four. You need it if you're in the mining industry. You need it if you're in the agricultural industry. So, these harmless sounding national vehicle emission standards—'Oh, we're just making fuel emission standards a bit tighter so efficiency improves'—are actually a direct cost on our farmers, on our mining industries, on our tradies, on anyone who needs a four-by-four or a ute for their livelihoods. So why are we doing this? This is very clearly a form of nudge economics. This is a form of behavioural economics. The government, because of their particular view of the world, are trying to change people's behaviour. Let me give you an example of the way this economic coercion will work—economic coercion using these fuel efficiency standards to force Australian families into particular choices. Let's compare two cars, a Tesla Model 3—around $62,000—and a Prado, a very popular car in Australia, out in the bush as well as in the cities, because people want to fit their family in a car; they want to be able to tow a caravan on the weekends and they want to be able to go off road occasionally. The Prado has a sticker price of $63,000. So you've got two cars with prices within $1,000 of each other. What will these national vehicle emission standards do to the prices of those cars, according to the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries? The government have hidden their modelling. They won't tell us what they think the impact will be, so the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries have had to do their own modelling. When they ran the government's proposal through their model they discovered that the price of the Tesla Model 3 will drop by $15,000 and the price of the Toyota Prado will go up by $4,000 to $5,000—a $20,000 differential. So, if you're a family with three kids who likes to get away on the weekend, suddenly you are faced with a $20,000 price differential between the car you would like—the Prado—and the Tesla. I've got nothing against electric cars—fabulous technology, and if you're just based in the city, a perfectly good choice, and a lot of people make that choice for themselves. But this is economic coercion from the government to force them into that choice: a $20,000 effective penalty if they choose the Toyota Prado over the Tesla. This is not the way our governments should operate. This will affect tradies, farmers and people in the mining industry, but it will also affect mums and dads and families who just want to tow a caravan on the weekend and get away or go offroad. This is not a fair proposal, and it should be shelved immediately. 17:20 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia The issue with the obsession of Prime Minister Albanese, Minister Bowen and Minister Catherine King with fuel efficiency standards is that they are not in any way equivalent to the comparable international markets. The pace and the time frame are not the same. It's very easy for the government to stand up here and say, 'Every other country in the world, except Russia, have fuel efficiency standards,' but it's not the title on top of the page of the policy that matters; it's the detail underneath it. When we're comparing ourselves with other countries, it's actually not an apples-versus-apples comparison. For example, we're told the USA have got exactly the same policy that we're implementing here. That's just not true. It's laughable; it's an absolute load of hogwash. Just because you put the same heading on the top of the policy, it's not the same—certainly, when you look at the detail. For example, the USA's fuel efficiency standards and their supporting policies are different to the ones that the Albanese government is seeking to impose. Firstly, the time frames are not consistent. The US are progressing at a much slower pace than the time frames Minister Bowen and Minister King are imposing. To put it in simple terms, we're attempting to climb three-quarters of the way up Mount Everest, whereas the US are merely trying to get to base camp. So it's just not equivalent. Secondly, the US, through their Inflation Reduction Act, are pouring billions of dollars into subsidies for battery manufacturing and direct subsidies for the consumer that come off the purchase price of the vehicle, and that's not what this policy is in any way proposing either. The biggest issue that the manufacturers have with the government's plan is the speed of the introduction. It is true that the vehicle industry is saying that we should have fuel efficiency standards. But it's the pace at which they are being implemented by this government that is the biggest problem the industry has, because it is going to drive up the cost for consumers. It's going to drive away the choice, as Senator Brockman was just saying, for consumers—people who actually want or need to have a dual cab, a big van or a vehicle that would enable them to do their job or those with lifestyle preferences who want to be able to hook up the caravan or the boat and go on that big drive. I'm from Western Australia, and the drives are very long and large over there. It is not like Canberra, where the coast is just there. The places you've got to go to—I try to get up to Exmouth as often as I can each year in July, and it's a 13-hour drive. It's a long way. The problem is the pace and the cost that is going to be imposed on people who still want to be able to buy the HiLux, Ranger, LandCruiser or the Patrol. For some, it's going to be $6,000 more, and, if you're wanting an even bigger vehicle like the LandCruiser or the Patrol, we're talking up to $13,000 more that's going to be added to the cost of them and their choice. This policy has been designed with an inner-city mindset, where you don't have to travel the big distances or carry the heavy loads. The rest of Australia who either work with their hands and their heavy tools or enjoy the lifestyle benefits of an SUV or ute are going to be significantly impacted by the tax on their choice. It's their choice, and we are wanting to take that away. The reason the manufacturers are saying that it is not possible to fit within the time frames is that the technology is not there. I'm sick and tired of hearing frankly ignorant statements from people who don't actually understand the science. They say, 'Oh, it is just a matter of time.' I had someone only recently tell me: 'Hang on, Matt, it's just like how we went from 3G to 4G to 5G mobile phone technology. There's just this innovation, and of course that's what's going to be applied to motor vehicles.' The problem with that argument—it's just not a comparison at all—is that that is mastering the use of radio spectrum. I don't know if anyone realises this, but radio spectrum doesn't weigh anything. There's no mass to it. What we're talking about with motor vehicles is, of course, the fact that they're heavy, and batteries are extremely heavy. The F-150 Lightning, the big American truck, which isn't actually selling that well in America, I've got to say, has a nearly 900-kilo battery in it, and that's storing about 120 kilowatt hours of electricity, which takes about three hours to recharge on a charger. There are some fast chargers around that might do it a little bit more quickly. You might get that down to about a half an hour if you're on a really fast charger. So it's really impractical. The equivalent, if you compared it with an ICE vehicle, is about 18 litres of fuel—petrol or diesel. So you've got this 900-kilo battery that is equivalent to 18 litres of fuel. It's not a direct one-to-one comparison but I think it's about 16 kilos of fuel, and then you've got the weight of the fuel tank and all that. So we're talking about 18 to 20 kilos compared to 900 kilos. It is just not practical. The other problem is that they say, 'But battery technology will improve.' What we're talking about is a tenfold increase that would be required. As I said, it takes half an hour on a really fast charger, and I'm talking about when you've got the power station right there and the interconnector right there that you're able to connect onto. It takes about half an hour to charge that vehicle. On a standard charger, such as a 50-kilowatt charger, it's about a three-hour charge. So imagine driving to Exmouth. Senator Smith knows where that is. That's a 1,300-kilometre drive from Perth. You only get a 100-kilometre range with these vehicles when you're towing. Imagine having to pull over for three hours after every hour. That would ruin your weekend. A trip of a couple of weeks up to Exmouth would turn into a couple of months. How ridiculous! The problem is that there's nothing on the periphery of battery science that gets us there. Even if you were to improve the energy density of a battery to the point where it became equivalent, you would turn that three-hour charge into a 30-hour charge, because that's what you'd actually have to bring yourself to to get that equivalence. It's just insane. I don't know if you realise this but a unit of electricity is a unit of electricity, just like a kilo is a kilo and a litre of water is a litre of water. You can't shrink a litre of water. There's no advancement in technology that can shrink it, and you can't shrink a kilowatt hour of electricity, because those electrons are electrons. There's no adjustment of that through the advancement of technology. If you're going to charge up a 500- or 600-watt hour battery, which doesn't exist and isn't even in the pipeline of existing, you would probably need to have one of our nuclear power stations right next door to the petrol station so that you could actually have enough chargers right there to be able to have the throughput of vehicles at any time. We know that it's not actually practical, and I defy anyone here in this place or anywhere else to challenge what I'm saying that it's rubbish, and I'm telling you that this is just science. It is just reality, and there is a detachment from reality in what the government is proposing. If you are a tradie and you use your hands or you use heavy tools for your job, you've got to carry heavy weights. My mate is a plumber. When he bought his van he told me that he drove it around without any tools or things in the back of it. He drove it around for a while and he was getting about 11 litres per 100 kilometres in that car. As soon as he put the roof rack on, put the tools in the back and put his drain machine in there, all of a sudden it turned into an average consumption of about 20 litres per 100 kilometres. It's just the laws of physics: when you carry heavy stuff, it takes more energy to move it. That's the reality here. But this policy is void of any reality. All you're doing is detaching Australians from choice and taxing them. You're taxing their choice. Australians want to be able to go about their business without the interference of government, and government is getting in the way of people's choices, whether it's their job or their lifestyle, and it just can't continue. Please, government, go back to the drawing board and fix this up. You're sending the bejesus up people. People want to be able to be backed up in their choices. ADJOURNMENT 770 ADJOURNMENT Vocational Education and Training 770 17:30 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise to talk about the Albanese Labor government's unwavering support and dedication to vocational education and a robust TAFE system. After smashing our fee-free TAFE targets last year, with almost 300,000 enrolments, the government is now rolling out another 300,000 places for 2024-2026. Australia has a real need to develop and maintain the capability and the diverse workforce that we're going to require in this country. We have industries like hospitality and tourism that have taken a serious hit through the pandemic and other recent events, and we have need to grow the care economy. Having the ongoing ability to fill jobs in community services, early childhood and aged care, amongst other areas, is going to be critical to our future successes. We know that there are critical skills gaps in areas such as construction, digital cybersecurity, agriculture and advanced manufacturing. The answer seems quite straightforward when you look at those things together: invest in our public TAFE system; incentivise school leavers, graduates, jobseekers; and fill these gaps. But under the previous government we saw cuts to TAFE, we saw a lack of commitment, we saw apprenticeships slashed and we saw every indication that skills and this kind of vocational training were not in their core priorities. I'd like to think that, as we've seen this situation culminate in the last couple of years in serious skills shortages, there would have been some introspection from across the room, some re-evaluation of priorities and a commitment. But, no—we just have this ever-negative approach, carping on at the positive things that the Albanese Labor government are doing, devoid of ideas and criticising everything that comes across this chamber. They even call our investments 'wasteful spending'. Now, when we're looking at businesses, both large and small, who are desperate for employees, for the skills to fill those gaps, and to make the most of the potential of our economy into the future, I can't see how anyone would say that this was wasteful spending. We've seen so many people sign up during the appeal for fee-free TAFE, so it's not a dearth of people wanting to train. Like I said, we have businesses out there desperate for those skills. We need to look at a long-term plan for our economy, and that's exactly what the Albanese Labor government has. We need to kickstart our manufacturing, capitalise on the employment and growth opportunities that we have in the sustainable energy transition. All of this needs a skilled workforce. This isn't just about the government's aspiration; this is about the aspiration of young people and job seekers across the country. Education is both empowering and a powerful lever for social mobility. Australians rightly expect—and deserve—secure, long-term employment that will afford them a decent standard of living. Far too many people find that there is a barrier in those fees while they are struggling with the cost of living, so these fee-free TAFE courses address some of that. They help address the cost-of-living pressures and put further training and education within the reach of so many more Australians. We're also undertaking a review into the apprenticeship incentive scheme. We need to understand what's standing in people's way and what barriers they are facing so that we can find ways to get past them and help more and more Australians into those jobs of the future to help fill that skills gap. It is important for Australians who want to upskill that we are looking at everything we can possibly do to bridge that gap. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job. We are delivering more TAFE enrolments and a stronger vocational training system, and we're making sure that Australian industry has the workforce it needs to meet future demands. We are giving everyday Australians a better pathway into secure, long-term employment because, for our economy to be all it can, for Australians to be all they can and for our support to be all that it can, this is what we need to do. Somali Community Association of Queensland Inc 771 17:35 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm absolutely delighted this afternoon to speak about a wonderful event I attended last Friday, hosted by the Somali Community Association of Queensland Inc. Queensland is truly, absolutely blessed to have its own Somali community, who make such an outstanding contribution to Queensland in every way. On Friday 23 February, the Somali Community Association of Queensland Inc held its annual professional and business networking event. I was absolutely delighted and honoured to be asked to attend. I'd like to congratulate the president, Mr Faysel Ahmed Selat, on a very successful event, and his team and everyone who participated—including those who flew interstate to come and participate in the event. To summarise the quality of this event and how inspired I was by this event, I want to tell you about two wonderful young Queenslanders—two wonderful members of the Queensland Somali community. Kifah Bulhan and her sister Amina Bulhan established the Fivestar Community Care centre. These two young ladies are in their 20s, and they established this wonderful Fivestar Community Care centre. And now they're employing Queenslanders, and pursuing their mission—I'll read their mission: To make a meaningful difference in our community by providing compassionate and dedicated care to individuals with disabilities. We believe in fostering a nurturing environment where everyone can thrive, and it is this dedication that drives us every day. These two wonderful Australians, Kifah Bulhan and Amina Bulhan, are truly inspiring. I'd like to congratulate everyone who received awards at the evening—and I'm going to run through this list, because I think it's important we put it on the record. Moonlight Family Day Care Services, Australian Halal Development and Accreditation, MasterRemit, Fivestar Community Care—who I've spoken about—and Beloved Care were the businesses who received awards. And I want to mention the individuals who received awards for demonstrating extraordinary dedication in supporting, caring for and inspiring others in the community: Fauzia Mohamed Dakane; Mohamed Bishar Omar; Fardowsa Abdirahman; Abdullahi Garfiiq; Fardowsa Yussuf; Abdi Samow; Ayan Ifiye; Zamzam Abdi; Mohamud Hassan; Amina Abdi; Yash Hanad Kamal; Nasra Aden; and Mohamed Ahmed. They are absolutely outstanding Australians, and our Somali community in Queensland makes a wonderful contribution to our state and to our country. I say to each and every one of you: it was absolutely inspiring and it was an honour to share the evening with you. Early Childhood Education, Western Australia: Schools 772 17:38 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia This week I had the opportunity to speak with educators from Goodstart Early Learning, who devote themselves to their profession out of profound love for children and are driven by an unwavering passion to foster their growth and impact their lives for the better. But, unfortunately, because of a decade of the coalition's deliberate policy to keep wages low, educators have been forced to leave the sector, resulting in a workforce crisis. We all know that love and passion unfortunately don't pay bills. I spoke to a young woman who had to move back with her parents because she couldn't make ends meet on her own due to the rising cost-of-living pressures. This story resonated with many of the other educators present at the meeting. In a snap poll conducted by the United Workers Union, 100 per cent of the respondents reported that staff shortages are impacting the quality of care and education that children receive. This is why the Albanese Labor government, through the work of our incredible minister, Anne Aly, are working closely with stakeholders to accelerate the implementation of the National Children's Education and Care Workforce Strategy to address the workforce challenges in the short to long term. We know the incredible impact Labor's cheaper childcare policy has had on our economy, driving women's participation in the workforce to record highs and assisting families who utilise early childhood education to tackle the cost of living. This initiative must be supplemented by a valued and well-supported early childhood education workforce if it is to reach its full potential. A real wage increase will go a long way to retain and attract workers to this vital industry. I'm proud to stand with these workers and support them in their calls for a pay rise that reflects the importance of the work they do. On another note, earlier this month, the Albanese and Cook governments signed a landmark agreement which will make Western Australia the first state in our country to fully fund all public schools. We know that Australia has a good education system, but it can be made a lot better and fairer, because every child deserves access to quality education. WA is the first state to endorse a statement of intent which will see the funding for all public schools increase from 95 per cent of the school resourcing standard to 100 per cent by 2026. This represents an additional $777.4 million investment by the Albanese government in Western Australian public schools from 2025 to 2029. Currently, the Commonwealth provides 20 per cent of the funding, which will increase to 21.25 per cent in 2025 and 22.5 per cent in 2026. As part of this agreement, WA's most disadvantaged schools will be fully funded from next year, and all schools will be fully funded by 2026. The funding will be tied to things that help children keep up, catch up and finish school—and this is just the first step. The Albanese government is committed to working with all states and territories to fully fund all schools. This deal was a great achievement in the history of public education in WA and is a testament to what can be achieved when state and federal governments work together for the people instead of working against each other for political gain. Premier Roger Cook said: This new landmark agreement with the Federal Government takes support for our schools to the next level—ensuring no child in a West Australian public school is left behind. With the Cook Labor government leading our state and the Albanese Labor government leading the country, the people of WA will come first. Norfolk Island 772 17:43 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia In his recent address welcoming the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea to Australia, our own Prime Minister said: … every Pacific nation, big or small, has the right to shape its own future and secure its own destiny. I strongly agree with these noble sentiments. Recently tabled in the Senate was a report titled Restoring democracy. The report was produced by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, of which I'm a member. It was about the local governance on Norfolk Island. I encourage senators to read the report, and I draw their attention to my additional comments. The report explores ways to return democracy to the people of Norfolk Island. For some time now, they have borne the yoke of an oppressive administration which is the creature of Australian bureaucracy. It is my hope that the recommendations in the report are adopted and constitute the first step in freeing the people of Norfolk Island to be able to secure their own future and, further, that Australia supports them in this journey not as an administrator or manager but as a dear friend and generous neighbour. I thank the people of Norfolk Island for the very generous welcome and hospitality they extended to me and my fellow members of the committee. I also thank them for their engagement with the committee, which was in good faith and in the spirit of friendship. My time on the island and with its people made a lasting impression upon me. I came to the view that there are two immutable principles that must guide the mainland's interactions with the people of Norfolk Island. Firstly, Norfolk Island is a distinct and separate territory and is entitled to determine its own future in accordance with the aspirations of its people. It must be supported by Australia in a manner that respects all that is sacred to and revered by the Norfolk Island peoples. Secondly, in all its dealings with the people of Norfolk Island, Australia must treat them with respect and a generosity of spirit. Australia must resist using its economic power unethically and instead negotiate with the island as an equal, having regard to its moral obligations to support the people and respect their aspirations. It is my great hope, moving forward, that this report is the beginning of a journey so that Norfolk Island's people can enjoy democracy and have an enriching relationship with Australia to the benefit of both communities. This can only be achieved with friendship, love and understanding. Senate adjourned at 17:46