CONDOLENCES

2024-03-18 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 18 March 2024

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 10:00 made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

CONDOLENCES 1 CONDOLENCES White, Senator Linda 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is my very sad duty to inform the Senate of the death, on 29 February 2024, of Senator Linda White, who served Victoria with distinction in this place from 2022. I call the minister to move the motion for condolence to be held tomorrow. 10:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That the routine of business on Tuesday, 19 March 2024 be the consideration of the condolence motion for Senator White only. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 10:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That the routine of business for today be as set out on today's order of business. The routine of business for today be: (a) government business only; (b) at 3 pm, statements pursuant to standing order 57(4), (c) at 3.30 pm, questions; and (d) the remainder of the routine of business as set out in paragraphs (iv) to (xiii) of standing order 57(1)(a). Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:03 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. DOCUMENTS 2 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 2 Order for the Production of Documents 2 10:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with the assertions made in the motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in reforming the NDIS to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. I also acknowledge the recent commitment by the Leader of the Opposition to working together with the government to this end. On 8 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent review into the NDIS, which was publicly released in December 2023. In producing this report, the independent NDIS review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities. It heard directly from more than 10,000 Australians, worked with disability organisations to reach out to listen to more than 1,000 people with a disability and their families, recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received almost 4,000 submissions. The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to its terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said that its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's annual growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. Discussions have continued with senators across this chamber, as well as members in the other place, to address questions about the government's NDIS reform agenda that it is pursuing together with the disability community. We look forward to working with senators in this place to get the NDIS back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents, as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate in addition to the aforementioned review. 10:05 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer. This is getting ridiculous. This is getting actually ridiculous. Month after month after month, the Senate has demanded that the Australian government cough up the documents required to give the disability community the certainty over what their plans are in relation to the NDIS. And, month after month after month, the government has trotted in here and given the same flat non-answer. It is actually becoming beneath this government that these answers keep being given. It is a parody of the transparency that was promised when they were elected. Let's be really clear: the Senate is asking the government to make public the documents, the projections, that were agreed at a National Cabinet meeting now all the way back in July of last year. All the way back in July, this government got together with state and territory ministers, made a deal and announced something called the NDIS Sustainability Framework. And, based on that framework, they booked some $50-plus billion worth of 'changes'. We in the disability community know what a $50 billion 'change' means. It means less money in our plans. It means fewer hours for our support workers. It means fewer job opportunities. It means fewer opportunities to make friends, to participate in the community and to utilise our human rights. And so this Senate has come together repeatedly to demand the actual documentation. And what has the government response been? 'We're not going to give it to you.' Why? 'Because we don't want to.' It is the logic that you find in a moody teenager that hasn't done their homework. We have asked them again and again, if their claim of public interest immunity is based on the risk of prejudicing the hallowed relationship between the states and Commonwealth government, to give us a letter from one state or territory minister objecting to the release of this documentation. They can't do it. They've had months to do it, and they've failed again, again and again. The minister, in their contribution, spent about half of their time referencing the independent review into the NDIS, which is irrelevant to the question before the Senate. The independent review contains none of the information requested by the Senate. I know because I've read it multiple times. This is the equivalent of being asked to submit your homework and instead going: 'No, I'm not going to submit the essay I was required to. Instead, here is a paper swan.' It's absolutely ridiculous. It makes a mockery of the transparency promised to the Australian disability community by the Labor government. We in the Greens will continue to work with all parties in this place to ensure that these documents are made public, that this Senate's demand for transparency is complied with and that the message goes forth from this place that embarrassment is not a reason to claim public interest immunity. I do not care and the Australian disability community does not care if the release of these documents make some in the government feel uncomfortable. It is, nevertheless, our right to know what your intention is in relation to our NDIS. You promised collaboration and co-design, and we in the Greens will hold you to that promise. 10:10 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales We know what we've heard before: 'My word is my bond' and 'This will be a government based on transparency.' Yet, it's all words. We know it's got nothing to do with actions. We see it here again. Senator Steele-John, I join you again today. It's 'NDIS Monday'. We're back and we'll be back every single sitting week demanding that these documents be provided. It's not for our benefit for a little bit of entertainment. This is for the 600,000 participants and their families, who don't know what this growth cap means and don't know what the sustainability framework looks like. They don't know what dirty deals have been done with the states, and how their plans, their families, their lives and their ability to live their best possible life will be affected. What we know is that a number of ministers in different states who look after areas like health and education don't know what they've been signed up to. They don't know what additional programs and steps they're going to be asked—most of them—to step back up into, because they vacated the field thanks to the way the Gillard government developed the NDIS funding model. What are the states going to be asked to deliver? Are they going to have to put more aids in classrooms? Are they going to have to run early intervention programs? Are they going to be expected to rollout substantial changes to community health so that people with children who have a developmental delay but not a permanent, lifelong disability can access early intervention, when required? When kids having a little bit of trouble with their speech or fine motor skills—but don't require NDIS because they aren't being diagnosed with permanent, lifelong disabilities—will they be able to access community health services or an OT or a speech therapist to get the help? Will they be able to access assistance and therapy options in less than two or three years, because know that's what the waiting list is for with most community health providers, where they even exist at all. This is important not only for the sustainability of the scheme and for the participants in it, and particularly those with permanent and lifelong and significant disabilities, but for the families that need to rely on the scheme to know that when they are no longer able to look after their children, they know their children will be supported in the way they best can be. They need to understand this. Again, this is a demand driven scheme. There are two ways to cap growth. You either cut the number of participants or you cut the value of the plans. That's it. There's no other way this can be achieved. So, which is it? A bit of column A, a bit of column B or a bit of both? We don't know, because those opposite are doing cosy, dirty deals with a sea full of red Labor premiers to keep it a secret. Thank God there's still one beacon of blue. I look forward to that beacon of blue being returned on Saturday. I'm pretty sure they'd be happy to understand what they've committed to and that their constituencies know what they've been committed to. Senator Steele-John, it was quite a good analogy about the homework. I like that you said it was a teenager being petulant. Having three teenagers, I understand that petulance. But I think this is worse. This is like a foot-stomping toddler that won't hand the cupcake back when they've already had six and dinner's on the table. It's absurd the way they behave here and that we get this same spiel week after week. Senator Steele-John is right. Bring in a letter from a premier saying it's going to damage relations, but you can't. Stand up and have the integrity to say to the families on the scheme that are impacted by this, 'This is how we're planning to cap the growth to eight per cent.' We know that's not happening at the moment. The growth is exponentially increasing and continuing to increase. We've also heard Minister Shorten say that this is a demand driven scheme, so that's just an arbitrary figure that they've come up with anyway. What's worse is that they're baking $69 billion worth of savings from this expected cap growth into the budget. But it's a demand driven scheme. Minister Shorten's saying if they can't reach it: 'It's all good. Don't worry about it; we'll just keep going.' But there's a $69 billion black hole that we could all fall into in the budget, because they've already factored in that they've capped the growth. The growth is currently double what they've said they will cap it at in around 18 months. They're saying they are going to have this down to eight per cent annually in just over 18 months. There is absolutely no way that that will happen unless they are planning on making fundamental shifts to eligibility requirements for the scheme. What are they going to do to the early childhood pathway? Are they going to start kicking people off? How will they work this through? Are they going to start putting age restrictions on people that are in the scheme already? What are the things that they are planning to do that are going to restrict the access of people with a disability and their families from being able to achieve the best possible outcomes in life? Question agreed to. MOTIONS 4 MOTIONS Middle East 4 10:16 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 451 relating to Gaza. The motion has been circulated. Leave not granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 How surprising! Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing the name of Senator Waters, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion related to the conduct of business of the Senate—namely, a notice of motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 451 relating to Gaza. As we sit here, as this Senate convenes, at least 31,490 Gazans are dead as a direct result of the State of Israel's invasion of Gaza. Of that figure, over 12,300 are children. This is an invasion which has proceeded with the support of the Australian government. Because of the shocking decision-making of the leadership of the government and the so-called leadership of the opposition in this place, this invasion has the formal support of this parliament by the passage of a resolution stating that the parliament 'stands with Israel'. The Australian Greens do not stand with the policies of the State of Israel. We do not stand with the bombings of the civilian people of Gaza, perpetrated by the State of Israel. We do not stand with the war crimes committed by the State of Israel. We do not stand with the crimes against humanity committed by the State of Israel. The children of Gaza are being starved to death by the policies of the State of Israel. The children of Gaza are losing their fathers, their mothers, their brothers, their sisters, their grandparents, their entire families, their homes and their communities because of the invasion by the State of Israel of Gaza. These crimes, these cruel acts, cannot continue to be perpetrated with the support of the Australian parliament. These crimes, these cruel acts, must be condemned. The government must now take the opportunity—as the opposition must—to join with the Greens and to join with the vast majority of the Australian community who say: 'Not in our name. Not now; not ever.' This parliament has heard clearly since 7 October the condemnation of every single party in this place in relation to the crimes committed by Hamas. This Senate records clearly the call of the Greens and of many other parties for the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages held by Hamas and of the political prisoners held by the State of Israel. So let us have no more of this atrocious gaslighting whereby the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, or whoever has the unfortunate responsibility to rise for the government today trot out these well-worn lines that this motion cannot be supported because it doesn't condemn Hamas or that this motion cannot be supported because it does not call for the release of hostages. Don't do the disservice to the community that those lines imply. Treat members of the community with respect and accord them the intelligence they actually have. Engage with the question before you; don't deflect. The people of Gaza and the children of Gaza are being starved and are now at risk of dying in their hundreds of thousands from famine and disease, as the direct result of the invasion that this parliament currently supports. Every single one of those people calls on you to do better in this moment, to engage with the actual question, with the facts and with the reality, and to clean and clear this parliament from the current contemptible position of supporting this illegal and immoral invasion. 10:22 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The coalition does not support this week's repetitive weekly attempt by the Australian Greens in terms of bringing on a motion of this nature. We do not support it. Wars are tragic, wars are horrible and wars result in tragedy and the tragic loss of human lives. We mourn all of those lives. We mourn the lives of innocent civilians, be they Israelis, Palestinians or, as I have said before in response to the Greens' motions, those of innocent civilians in conflicts that continue right across the world that don't receive the same degree of attention and, indeed, don't receive the same degree of grandstanding from the Australian Greens. Wars are fought for a variety of reasons, but often wars are fought between right and wrong, between interests that align with your values, and between interests that are evil and undermine those values. Let me be very clear: we should continue to stand with Israel against Hamas because we are supporting what is right in terms of the defence of values and democratic institutions that matter versus, in Hamas, a terrorist organisation that deliberately, on 7 October, targeted women, children and young people at music festivals, and deliberately murdered, raped, slaughtered and kidnapped those individuals, sparking this conflict and that continues to hold hostages. Apparently, according to Senator Steele-John, I am deflecting by mentioning Hamas or mentioning the hostages. Call it a deflection if you want. I think it is core to the conflict that is being waged. We believe that Hamas is an evil terrorist organisation, their continued holding of hostages is an evil act and the way in which they have held those hostages using the Palestinian people as a human shield is a further evil that is perpetuating the cycle of violence and destruction so tragically. We should continue to stand with Israel against the defeat of Hamas just as we should continue to stand with Ukraine against the defeat of Russia, just as we should give support and encouragement to those oppressed Burmese against the Tatmadaw and the military junta in Myanmar and just as we should make sure that as a country we stand for right versus wrong. That does not mean that in all of these cases we unconditionally support every action, every behaviour and every decision that occurs in faraway places over which we have no influence or no direct say. We should be clear, as this Senate and parliament were when the joint motion was passed by the government and the opposition, that we have expectations in relation to respect for international law and to humanitarian support being made available, and we should absolutely make those expectations clear continuously. The coalition wants to see more humanitarian assistance reach, and we would like to see a ceasefire but not the unconditional ceasefire the Greens call for, which would just give Hamas opportunities to reorganise, regroup and regain power while presumably continuing to hold the hostages that they have held ever since 7 October. We would wish to see a ceasefire where Hamas releases the hostages, surrenders, hands over its terrorist operatives and terrorist infrastructure and which puts the region on a path to greater stability and greater peace. That is an outcome that could be secured and would achieve steps forward, whereas the Greens' pathway is one that would just perpetuate the circumstance further. That is why we are very clear in continuing to support the words this parliament had in October last year, and we will continue to stand by those words. 10:27 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria It's been 163 days of a black and bloody dystopian nightmare in Gaza. It's been 163 days of genocidal horrors and barbaric destruction brought upon innocent children, women, queers, men, the elderly, animals and trees—all that has life—and intensifying every minute. We're watching the harrowing impacts, where 70 per cent of the killed and injured are defenceless women and children, with two mothers killed every 60 minutes. These are not just numbers; these are human beings with dreams, hopes and aspirations, cut short by senseless violence. In Gaza, women face unimaginable challenges in the wake of genocide. They are not merely victims; they are survivors grappling with the loss of loved ones, the destruction of their homes and the shattered remnants of their communities. Mothers, daughters and sisters mourn the loss of family members and are often left to navigate the harsh realities of life without their loved ones by their side. The emotional scars run deep, leaving lasting trauma that reverberates through generations. Yet amidst the darkness, there is resilience. Their voices may be silenced, but their spirit endures, inspiring hope and solidarity in the pursuit of a better tomorrow. Let us be reminded of the importance of solidarity and advocacy in the fight for the women, girls, children, queers and everyone in Gaza as the State of Israel shows no restraint in its ongoing invasion of Gaza. We must continue to recommit ourselves to the principles of equality, dignity, self-determination and human rights for all. The destruction of 70 to 80 per cent of the built environment in Gaza is not just collateral damage; it is a deliberate assault on the very fabric of Palestinian society. Homes, schools, hospitals and mosques lie in ruins, leaving entire communities shattered and displaced. This is not a war. This is a systematic campaign to erase the Palestinian identity and deny Palestinian people their right to exist. We cannot turn a blind eye to the suffering of Palestinian brothers and sisters. We cannot allow the perpetrators of these crimes to go unpunished. The Israeli government must be held accountable for its flagrant disregard for international law and human rights. The world must demand justice for the victims of this genocide, but our outrage cannot end with condemnation. It must fuel our determination to fight for justice, for freedom and for the right of every Palestinian to live in dignity and peace. Let us stand in solidarity with the people of Gaza, amplifying the voices, advocating for their rights and demanding accountability for the crimes committed against them. We have to build a future where peace and justice prevail, where the rights and dignity of all are upheld without exception. Together we will not rest until the people of Gaza and all of Palestine are free from oppression, until justice prevails and until Palestine is finally liberated. 10:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government will be opposing this suspension. I will start by making this observation: I understand and the government understands that the conflict in the Middle East is deeply distressing for many Australians. That's particularly the case for those with a connection to the region and those with loved ones who are directly impacted. Australia is a respected voice in the conflict, even if we are not a central player in the Middle East, and we are using that voice. We are using that voice to advocate for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and humanitarian access. We're using that voice to advocate for the release of hostages. And we're using that voice to advocate for the protection of civilians. It is of deep regret that the government does not have partners in this effort in either the opposition or the Greens, who are only, in their own ways, looking for opportunities to use this crisis to whip up conflict and whip up anger for votes. If they were sincere about the crisis in the Middle East then they would be engaged in the pathway to peace and in keeping our community unified. Mr Dutton and the Greens— Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order. Minister, resume your seat. Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Your contributions were heard in silence. Under standing order 197, I require you show the same respect to the minister, even if you disagree with her views or comments. Minister. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Thank you. I remind the Greens that right now there are more than 130 hostages still being held by the terrorist group Hamas. I remind the opposition that we are faced with reports from the UN that 400,000 Palestinians in Gaza are starving and a million more are at risk of starvation. An estimated 1.7 million people in Gaza are internally displaced and there are increasingly few safe places for Palestinians to go. And I remind the Senate that we are seeing attacks by Iranian aligned militias across the region. Ansar Allah are conducting attacks in the Red Sea that are threatening international maritime trade and regional security, and we are supporting US and UK efforts to disrupt, degrade and deter them. Senator Shoebridge 169119 Is that why you are supporting the bombing of Gaza? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order. Minister, resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, I have asked for the Greens to collectively respect the standing orders. I'm now asking you specifically to respect standing order 197. Minister. Senator McALLISTER 121628 We are working with our partners to manage the risk, the real risk, of regional escalation. But, as you can see, we don't have partners for that effort in this place. The opposition and the Greens are not interested in a unified community here at home or in the pathway to peace; they are just looking out for what is in it for them. My view is that Israelis deserve better, Palestinians deserve better and Australians deserve a great deal better than what they are seeing this morning. Senator Thorpe 280304 You're sending guns to kill women and children. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I move: That the question be put. Senator Thorpe 280304 Shame on you. You're sending guns to kill women and children. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Thorpe, you do not have the call. Your interjections are disorderly and against the standing orders. Senator Thorpe 280304 I know that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Then show respect to the chamber. If we expect the world, including the Middle East, to operate according to rules that benefit people regardless of their views, then show that respect in the chamber. Senator Thorpe 280304 You're complicit in genocide here. That's why. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The question as moved by the minister is that the question be put.

The Senate divided. [10:39]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)

30 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:42 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:42]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 8 BILLS Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 8

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

Second Reading 8 10:46 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. This bill implements the second tranche of the government's paid parental leave reform announced in the 2022-23 October budget. It follows changes commenced on 1 July 2023 to make the scheme more accessible, flexible and gender equitable. This legislation is even better news for families struggling with the cost of living and juggling all the expectations of a modern life. I spoke in this place during the debate on the first tranche of these plans. It was, after all, a proud Labor policy that we took to the last election. The Albanese government is committed to Australian families and to the Australian workforce as our country evolves. Industrial relations policy changes must take into account our changing world and the demands on our families, which is why this policy expands paid parental leave to 26 weeks by increasing the total number of weeks by two weeks each year starting on 1 July 2024 to reach 26 weeks on 1 July 2026. This is a landmark policy, and I'm proud to be part of a Labor government that is setting the standards for paid parental leave entitlements. It is wonderful to be part of a political party which thinks big and implements policies that change the lives of Australians for the better such as sick leave, Medicare, superannuation, the NDIS, the NBN, cheaper child care, just to name a few, and now the extension of paid parental leave. The bill will increase the number of weeks reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis, reaching four weeks in 2026 and will double the number of weeks parents can take concurrently, reaching four weeks in 2025. The bill also includes a minor technical amendment to ensure access for fathers and partners who do not meet the work test requirements but who would have if their child had not been born prematurely. This provision is already in place for birth parents. This historic change commences from 1 July 2024 and applies to births or adoptions from that date. Over 180,000 Australian families are expected to access paid parental leave each year. What this means to families is everything. It will help them to juggle work and caring responsibilities with greater ease, and this is exactly what governments are supposed to do. Governments are supposed to make laws to create a better and fairer society. The expansion to 26 weeks is the largest investment in this scheme since it was introduced in 2011. Crucially, this investment will increase support for both birth parents and partners. Up to 22 weeks of leave will be available for one parent, which is up from 18 weeks, with four weeks reserved for the other parent, which is up from two weeks. Single parents can access the full entitlement, which is great news for single mums and dads across the country. We understand that women lose out financially where caring responsibilities are concerned, so we're acting decisively to level the playing field and help the women of Australia. As well as increasing the reserved period to encourage shared care, which is crucial for women's economic equality, the bill gives families more flexibility by doubling the period parents can take concurrently, from two weeks to four weeks. The Albanese government's reform reflects our commitment to improve the lives of working families, improve outcomes for children and advance gender equality. The government's 2022-23 October budget measure was informed by sustained calls from a wide range of stakeholders across the country to improve and expand the scheme, particularly to encourage shared care, so we stand by this important policy reform and are rightly proud of it. I'm really proud to be part of a government that supports gender equality and supports women to thrive personally and professionally. Women—particularly women of my generation—often retire with not enough super. We know this. If we can level the playing field at different times in women's lives while they have the major caring responsibilities, we will do something about it, and this bill is another step towards trying to level that playing field. This bill is crucial reform. It's great for families and great for women, but it's also great for our economy. It's good for productivity in the long term, and it's good for future generations. As I said from the outset, it's crucial for families, it's crucial for women, and it's crucial for children and our economy. The Albanese government understands that paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of parents and their children. We understand that investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy and we know that, implemented correctly, paid parental leave can advance gender equality, which is core business for our government. We know that our policy of providing superannuation on paid parental leave is going to be so much better for Australian families and so much better, in particular, for women. It just stands to reason: superannuation is the cornerstone of a better retirement, if it is supported and if you make your contributions. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and support for families and more opportunity for women. This is why the paid parental leave reform was a centrepiece of our first budget. We invested half a billion dollars to expand the scheme to six months by 2026. This is the largest investment in paid parental leave since Labor established it in 2011, benefiting over 180,000 families each year in this country. Once again, this crucial piece of policy was introduced by a Labor government. When the community is looking for reform to improve the lot of women and children and families in this country, you can always rely on a Labor government. But, as I said from the outset in this speech, this policy initiative reflects the Albanese government's commitment to improve the lives of working families, support better outcomes for children, and advance women's economic opportunity. Together our changes strike an important balance of increasing support to mums, encouraging dads to take leave and providing family flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements. So many more men are staying at home and being home dads. We respect this. We understand that care arrangements are more flexible than they used to be, and this is supported through this legislation. When my husband was a home dad, it was a long time before it was made easy by having paid parental leave. But I was fortunate enough to have a husband that was prepared to take on the major role in caring for our children once our youngest had started school and I was able to return to the workforce. This paid parental leave bill is revolutionary in the way it's going to assist women and families. What we need to do as a government, as do all governments, is have policies that provide flexible and agile opportunities for families to be able to return to the workforce while managing their responsibilities as carers. As a nation, it's critical that our Paid Parental Leave scheme supports modern Australian families. This is why we have devised a scheme that is flexible and fair and that drives positive health, social and economic outcomes for both parents and their children. The bill encompasses all of these ideas and commits resources to Australian families. Crucially, the bill provides more families with greater access to more paid parental leave, provides parents flexibility in how they take their leave and encourages them to share the care responsibilities, which I think is essential to creating that very strong family unit. This bill is good for parents, good for kids, good for employers and good for the economy. It's great for my home state of Tasmania—and if it's good for Tasmania, then, of course, it's good for the nation. I commend the bill. (Quorum formed) 10:59 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. This bill represents a major step forward for gender equality and the economic advancement of working families. Under the current Paid Parental Leave scheme, working families can access up to 20 weeks of government funded paid parental leave. Two weeks are reserved for each parent, leaving 16 weeks for parents to share and utilise however they see fit. This bill will increase paid parental leave by two weeks every year until it reaches 26 weeks from 1 July 2026. This means parents will have access to a full six months of paid parental leave by mid-2026. When the scheme reaches 26 weeks, four weeks will be reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis, as we heard from Senator Helen Polley earlier, with a further 18 weeks available for parents to utilise as they see fit and as fits their arrangements. Coupled parents will also be able to take four weeks of paid parental leave at the same time, which is an increase of two weeks from the current scheme. Under the new scheme, single parents will be entitled to the full 26 weeks of paid parental leave. This bill represents a total investment into paid parental leave of $1.2 billion by the Albanese Labor government. I'm so proud to be part of a government that is committed to investing in working families, the backbone of our Australian economy. Approximately 180,000 Australian families who will receive paid parental leave each year are set to benefit from a fairer, more generous scheme that will boost productivity, increase workforce participation, advance the equality of women, support maternal health and wellbeing, and give families extra flexibility. As is evident, the bill is better for families, better for women and better for our economy. It is enthusiastically supported by both the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is the latest instalment in a series of Labor reforms designed to improve the lives of Australian families. As Minister Rishworth said, it was a Labor government that created Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It was a Labor government that introduced no-fault divorce, the single mothers benefit and the child support system. And it was a Labor government, the Gillard government to be precise, that introduced paid parental leave in Australia. The Albanese Labor government is committed to strengthening our proud legacy of paid parental leave through this bill. For working families in my home state of WA, I know just how important an extra six weeks of paid parental leave will be. When I speak to families at their doors, they often tell me how hard it is to juggle caring responsibilities. This bill will provide much-needed relief whilst ensuring that Aussie kids get the best possible start in life. I also want to emphasise the impact that this bill will have on working women because we know that women often take on a disproportionate share of unpaid care. Workplace equality and the economic security of women are key priorities for the Albanese Labor government, and I commend the social services minister, Amanda Rishworth, for her work on this bill, noting that this is the largest expansion of paid parental leave since the conception of this scheme. A key objective of the expanded scheme is to encourage more fathers and partners to take leave to ensure that parental duties are balanced and shared more equally and that women can return to work after starting a family. We know that it's not easy. This bill is critical to ensuring that the transition back to work is as seamless as possible. Flexibility for families is central to this scheme, enabling parents to structure their caring arrangements in a way that best suits their needs. However, it is also important to note that the extent of paid parental leave should not be limited to the entitlement provided by the government. Australian employers also have a complementary role to play by providing their own schemes. All employers should be encouraged by the leadership of our government on this issue and deliver or expand their own schemes. It is definitely a welcome sign that the proportion of Australian employers that are funding their own paid parental leave schemes is increasing, and it is critical that this trend continues not only for the long-term health and happiness of Australian families but also for the significant economic benefits generated by paid parental leave. I also want to take a moment to highlight the government's recent decision to pay superannuation on the Paid Parental Leave payment from 1 July 2025, which was a key recommendation of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. Paying super on paid parental leave is critical. It's critical because it will normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement and reduce the impact of parental leave on retirement incomes. Parental leave should not be treated any differently to annual leave or sick leave when it comes to super. This measure and the expansion of the Paid Parental Leave scheme highlight the Albanese Labor government's commitment to address gender inequality. This is underpinned by 10 measures we have taken. Count with me: our investment in women's health and safety; our investment in cheaper child care; Labor's tax cuts, which will deliver a tax cut to all women taxpayers; the amendments to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, to enable the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish the gender pay gap data of employers with 100 or more employees; making gender equality an objective of the Fair Work Act 2009 through the 'secure jobs, better pay' reforms; supporting the private sector action to embed gender equality in pay, leadership and opportunities, including in emerging industries like clean energy with the 'Equal by 30' campaign on women in the clean energy sector; prioritising action on gender segregation of the labour market by recruiting and retaining more women into trades and other occupations through apprenticeship supports, fee-free TAFE places and targets in the Australian Skills Guarantee; including gender equality as a national priority in the National Skills Agreement; expanding eligibility to parenting payments for singles so that single parents, who are overwhelmingly mothers, can access increased support until their children are 14; and finally, No. 10—we've reached it—improving the child support system to ensure timely collection of child support owed to parents, who are, again, overwhelmingly women, and help prevent debt among low-income parents. The theme of this year's International Women's Day was 'Count Her In'. I'm so proud to be part of a government that champions the economic inclusion of women, because we know that, when women are empowered and given equal opportunities to succeed, they thrive. I particularly want to commend the Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, for launching the government's national gender equality strategy, Working for Women. The strategy outlines the government's vision for gender equality. It will ensure that Australia is a place where people are safe, are treated with respect, have choices and have access to resources and equal outcomes no matter their gender. The strategy outlines a path to make progress towards this vision over the next decade, with a focus on five priority areas: gender based violence; unpaid and paid care; economic equality and security; health; and leadership representation and decision-making. When it comes to women's economic equality and security strategy, gender gaps are driven by patterns of work and care, women's overrepresentation in part-time, low-paid and insecure jobs and barriers to career advancement. Australia's industry and occupational segregation also contribute to gender pay gaps. Women tend to study or train in areas that attract debt or require unpaid placements to qualify, creating inequality from the start of their careers. Women led businesses or startups also attract less investment, restricting their ability to drive entrepreneurial initiatives in Australia. To achieve gender equality, there needs to be a sustained reduction in the gender gaps for pay and retirement incomes. The government can use its levers to create safe, secure and flexible workplaces, support equitable access to education and skills building and remove disincentives and inequities that perpetuate occupational and industrial gender segregation and sustained pay and wealth gaps. We still have a long way to go to address gender in equality in Australia, but I know that the Albanese Labor government is on the right track. The economic security of women is and will remain a key feature of our government's economic plan—as it should. Expanding paid parental leave is a much-needed reform and critical step forward for economic inclusion. It is a reform that is not only good for women but good for families and good for the economy. I commend the bill to the Senate. 11:10 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate on this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. I note the Community Affairs Legislation Committee has examined the bill ahead of Senate consideration. Delivering their report on 5 February, the committee recommended the Senate pass the bill. I was very pleased to see strong support for the bill from a diverse range of family, employer and community groups; unions; gender experts; and economists. I acknowledge that in the committee's report and this second reading debate some of the crossbench have called on the government to further invest in PPL. I am proud of the strides our government has made since coming to office, and we know there is more to do. The government recently announced we will pay super on PPL from July 2025, which will help normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement like annual and sick leave and reduce the impact on retirement incomes. We also know gender pay gaps at retirement are primarily driven by gender pay gaps in working life. Investing in paid parental leave is one part of the government's multibillion-dollar and long-term agenda to support women's economic opportunity. It's worth remembering the government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement leave provided by employers, who also have a key role to play. Data collected by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows the proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has increased over the last decade. Nearly two-thirds of employers offer their own entitlement, up from fewer than half a decade ago. This positive trend demonstrates that employers increasingly see themselves as having a role alongside government in providing paid parental leave, recognising it is a workplace entitlement rather than a welfare payment. We absolutely want to see this trend keep growing. The comments we have heard from the opposition and some of the crossbench about removing the employer from the equation risks undermining recent progress to normalise PPL as a workplace entitlement. The Productivity Commission recommended the employer role to promote workplace retention and gender equality. In considering potential administrative impact, the Productivity Commission found that, in any given year, only four per cent of small businesses would need to administer PPL for an employee. Subsequently, an independent evaluation of the PPL scheme, conducted by the University of Queensland over a four-year period, found employers generally experienced a few difficulties in administering the payment and costs were very minimal in terms of both time and money. Administering the payment is a reasonable contribution from employers, who significantly benefit from the government providing PPL to their employees. Each year, the government spends around $460 million to provide PPL to employees in small businesses. Moreover, two recent Senate committees heard compelling evidence from women's groups, family advocates, economists and unions about how the employer role in administering PPL is important for promoting gender equality. These groups have expressed significant concern with the idea that small businesses shouldn't have to administer the payment. The ACTU said this would be a huge backward step for gender equality. PPL 'should be perceived as a normal feature of employment arrangements' rather than welfare. Jess Rudd from The Parenthood said: 'Parents will lose the umbilical link to their employer or have to go through Centrelink. I've run a small business. I'm all for cutting red tape, but this is just bad policy.' Dr Angela Jackson, a leading economist, said 'it would be a really retrograde step' and 'while it might small time administrative gain for small businesses, the long-term competitive disadvantages will hurt them as a sector. It'll certainly hurt the women that are working for them, and it will hurt the broader economy.' The government shares the view of the Productivity Commission, women's groups, family advocates, economists and trade unions. Paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement that should be administered by employers. Governments, businesses and unions should be working together to ensure paid parental leave entitlements are as strong and inclusive as they can be. I commend the bill. 11:15 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to speak to the amendment to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023. Tasmanian lost another shopfront today, a much-loved shop in Hobart called The Spotted Quoll. My office spoke to the owner this morning and she told us 'I feel like the government is working hard to put us out of business.' Five million Australians are employed by small businesses across the country. Small businesses account for 40 per cent of all business and are the backbone our nation's economy. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 400,000 small businesses closed just last year and 7,000 of them were in Tasmania. There are 2.5 million small-business owners in this country and they are doing it really tough. Forty-three per cent of them aren't even breaking even. If the government can ease their administrative burden, they should. I support paid parental leave. It is a great thing. These amendments to paid parental leave give small businesses a choice. The Commonwealth is picking up the tab but, as it currently stands, the administration of the scheme will fall on small business and that is so unfair. Small businesses do not have human resources departments. They neither have armies of accountants on their payroll nor do they usually have lawyers. In fact, the average number of staff they have is just three. If these changes to paid parental leave go through, and they should, they will put more red tape on the doorsteps of small-business owners once again. By the way, this is a scheme that small-business owners have no control over. They can be penalised for not properly administering it and that will put a heavy burden not only on their businesses but also on them personally. Frankly, small-business owners are no different to other Australians. They are trying to run a small business, trying to do the right thing, they have family commitments of their own, and we're burdening them. Small-business owners will be penalised and held accountable for something they have no control over, which is really bad. As the owner of The Spotted Quoll told my office this morning, 'It feels like the government doesn't give a damn about us.' Now the government can show they do care. These amendments will give small businesses a choice: they will be able to administer the scheme themselves or hand over the administration to Services Australia, which has 35,000 staff. This will give those small businesses who can't afford the additional burden of paid parental leave a way out. The workers will still get their paid parental leave, but small businesses won't have to administer it. That is all they are asking for. Social Services are great at this stuff. They have been doing it for years. They are already doing it. I just want to know why the government, when it has the opportunity to cut red tape, is continually putting more and more red tape over them. Why? My question to you is: don't you like small business? Small businesses employ a lot of people and they just want to know why you won't give them a go. It is really unfair. We must give small businesses the choice to opt in or to opt out. We must not place another heavy burden on small businesses. I acknowledge that the government has agreed to commit $10 million to help small business assist in the administration of this scheme, and I would like to acknowledge my fellow senator David Pocock and his team for working so hard to strike a balance between supporting workers and protecting small businesses from administering this scheme. I'd also remind Australians that it is what a strong crossbench can deliver. My office will continue to work constructively with the government, but they need to hear this message loud and clear, once again: small businesses already have way too much red tape on them; they don't need any more. You are driving them into the ground, and it is not worth it. Otherwise you're going to see the unemployment rate go up, and you're up for election in about 13 months time. That won't look pretty. They don't want the burden, so why put it on them when you have a department that already delivers the system? Why can't you pick this up? There is no excuse for not picking this up. Give them the choice to opt in or opt out. We're not asking a lot. Stop putting the heavy burden on small business, because, quite frankly, they've had enough, and they're doing it tough enough. I don't want to see any more small businesses driven into the ground because of the actions of the Labor government. They've had enough. Like I said, you go on about having jobs for the country. I'll tell you what: you can eliminate a lot of jobs really quickly if those small businesses close their door. You may want to remember that, because they are the backbone of this country when it comes to business. They are it. We will continue to work hard with the government, but, seriously, the common-sense action would be to let them opt in and let them opt out. We're not asking for anything else. That's all we're asking for, and that's all small business is asking for. They're not asking for much at all. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:26]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

5 AYES Babet, R. Lambie, J. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Thorpe, L. A. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 13 11:30 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Superannuation for Commonwealth-funded parental leave pay Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 1 After section 5A Insert: 5AA Application of Act to Commonwealth for payments of parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 (1) If a payment of parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 is made to a person (or to a person's payment nominee within the meaning of that Act): (a) the person is taken, for the purposes of this Act (including the definition of Commonwealth employee in subsection 6(1) of this Act), to be employed by the Commonwealth as an employee of the Commonwealth in respect of the payment; and (b) the responsible Department, in relation to the employment of the person as a Commonwealth employee, is taken, for the purposes of this Act (including the definition of responsible Department in subsection 5(5) of this Act), to be the Department of State administered by the Minister administering the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010; and (c) the payment of parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 (disregarding any deductions made under Part 3-1 of that Act) made to the person is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to be salary or wages paid by the Commonwealth to the person as an employee of the Commonwealth. Note: The effect of this subsection and section 5 of this Act is that the Commissioner will be required to pay amounts for the benefit of a person under Part 8 of this Act if the Commonwealth does not pay sufficient superannuation for the person for payments of parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made to the person. (2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) applies whether the payment of parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 is made to the person in accordance with Part 3-2 or 3-3 of that Act. 2 Application of amendment Section 5AA of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to payments of parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made in relation to days, in an instalment period (within the meaning of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010), occurring on or after 1 July 2024. 2062-EM Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023 (Requests for amendments to be moved by Senator Waters, on behalf of the Australian Greens, in committee of the whole) Statement pursuant to the order of .the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it would expand the categories of salary or wages used to calculate whether the Commonwealth (as an employer) has a superannuation guarantee shortfall under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SGA Act). It does so by providing that payments to a person of parental leave pay under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 are taken, for the purposes of the SGA Act, to be payments of salary or wages to that person as an employee of the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth does not pay sufficient superannuation as an employer on salary or wages in accordance with the SGA Act, then the Commonwealth will have a superannuation guarantee shortfall under that Act. As the amendment expands the categories of salary or wages, the amendment will likely increase the amount of the Commonwealth's superannuation guarantee shortfall under the SGA Act, which would increase any superannuation guarantee charge in respect of that shortfall that is taken to have been paid by the Commonwealth under section 5 of the SGA Act. This would have the effect of increasing the amount the Commissioner of Taxation is required to pay under Part 8 of the SGA Act under the standing appropriation in section 71 of that Act. Amendment (1) Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2). Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant .to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 71 of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request. Amendment (1) This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request. These are the amendments that would say, 'Why are women having to wait for superannuation to be paid on their paid parental leave until 1 July of next year?' We welcome the fact that the government has finally and belatedly announced that superannuation will be added to the government portion of paid parental leave, but there is still no justification for why women are being asked to wait for—what is it?—16 months until that meagre top-up, important though it may be, will be added to their PPL. This amendment says to the government, 'Stop making women wait for the good things.' Paid parental leave is the only entitlement upon which superannuation is not currently paid. It is also the only entitlement that is predominantly taken by women. Ergo, it is gender discrimination. We're pleased that the government have said that they will fix this, but there is no justification for making women wait. This amendment says that you will be able to get superannuation paid on your paid parental leave from 1 July of this year; you don't have to wait until 1 July of next year. Making women wait until after the next election to receive super on paid parental leave is an outrage. This is a government that said that they were meant to be for women, but they keep making us wait for some small positive improvements. I've got some other amendments that go to the broader reforms that actually women and young parents and all parents deserve, which would extend out the amount and the length of PPL that can be taken, but this particular amendment just says, 'Stop making women wait for next year.' You're not making nuclear submarines wait. You didn't make the wealthy men wait for their tax cut, even though you amended it. Why are women waiting? So I commend these amendments to the chamber. 11:32 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government does not support these amendments. The government has announced it will pay superannuation on government funded paid parental leave from next year. The reason for this is to help normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement like annual and sick leave. Senator Waters 192970 Normalise it now! Senator McCARTHY 122087 I understand your passion here, Senator Waters, but I will get to that. It is about annual and sick leave and reducing the impact of parental leave on retirement incomes. This is the first time the government will be paying superannuation on a government payment. A start date of 1 July 2025 will allow us to get this right. This is not a straightforward legislative change, and it will involve significant change to PPL, income tax and superannuation legislation. It also requires significant systems changes across Services Australia and the ATO. It's not clear how these amendments from the Greens would operate in practice, including how PPL recipients would be paid their super, given the lack of clarity in these amendments. Including superannuation as a part of this bill is not practical. Not only could it affect the successful implementation of paying super on PPL, but it could also jeopardise the timely passage of this bill. The timely passage of this bill is critical for expecting parents to be able to start to pre-claim from the end of March. Under the Paid Parental Leave Act, families are able to pre-claim up to three months ahead of their expected due date so that, from the parents' end, the administration is settled before the baby arrives. Around two thirds of families choose to pre-claim. So I just would like to say to the Greens that the government wants to get super on PPL right. Don't hold up this important bill, which extends PPL to 22 weeks from 1 July this year, 24 weeks from July 2025 and 26 weeks from July 2026. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 The question is that Australian Greens requests (1) and (2) on Sheet 2062 for amendments be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:38]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Allman-Payne)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 2403 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 11 (line 2) to page 13 (line 17), omit "this Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "this Schedule". (3) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Other amendments Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 1 Section 6 Insert: small business employer: see subsection 101(7). 2 After paragraph 101(1)(c) Insert: (ca) the employer is not a small business employer; and 3 Subsection 101(2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 4 At the end of section 101 Add: Meaning of small business employer (7) An employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 20 employees at that time. 5 Subparagraph 207(3)(a)(i) Omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ca)". 6 Subsection 207(3) (note 2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 7 Subparagraph 224(2)(a)(i) Omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ca)". 8 Subsection 224(2) (note 2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 9 Application of amendments The amendments of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made by this Schedule apply in relation to claims made on or after the commencement of this item. 11:41 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government opposes these amendments. The employer role, as recommended by the Productivity Commission to promote women's workplace retention and gender equality, has been a key feature of the scheme since it was established in 2011. The Productivity Commission said Paid Parental Leave arrangements will be viewed by both employers and employees as standard employment arrangements if they are similar to other employment conditions rather than a government payment from Services Australia. This normalises parental leave as a workplace entitlement, which is good for employee retention and fosters gender equitable workplaces. The government's commitment to pay super on PPL will also help with this. The bill before parliament does not make any change to the longstanding employer role. It gives Australian families more paid parental leave than ever before, which, in turn, is good for them, good for their employer and good for the economy. The government has heard compelling evidence from women's groups, family advocates, economists and unions about how the employer role in administering PPL is important for promoting gender equality, and removing this for small business would be a backward step. 11:42 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise on behalf of the Greens to point out that we won't be supporting this or any of the other amendments moved by Senators Pocock, Lambie and Babet. The whole point of having paid parental leave is that it is a workplace entitlement. Anything which would sever the connection between the worker who is taking parental leave and the employer destroys the whole point of a system that is designed to encourage women's workforce participation. 11:43 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, with this payment, I understand the argument about the workplace relationship in large businesses, but it doesn't stack up in small businesses. The government's own data show that the average small business—and potentially even microbusinesses, where you have a mum running a small business with a few employees—will have to spend 15 hours administering a payment that Services Australia already administers in up to 40 per cent of cases. If you haven't been at a business for 12 months, Services Australia does it directly. I get that with a large business with an HR department, it should just go through there. But we're talking about small businesses here who have good relationships with their employees. They have to because they're working with them day in and day out. Surely at that level it makes sense to have an opt-in, opt-out system. If the issue is with how hard it is to navigate Services Australia, let's fix that. Let's fix Services Australia. Let's not put that onto small businesses who have to be some sort of go-between, when Services Australia is paying new parents directly 40 per cent of the time. What can the government say when it comes to small businesses now facing potentially 15 hours a week on top of all their other commitments to administer a government payment? There's multipartisan support for PPL. I would love to see the government go further. But when it comes to the administration of it, this is a government payment. We should celebrate the fact that this is from the Australian people. This isn't the business coughing up: it's all of us. It's great to live in a country where we decide to do that and make that payment. So I'm a bit concerned about what it says about us that we want to try to disguise it as a business entitlement, when actually it's the Australian people saying we're going to pay for you to have real quality time with your new family. It's asking what's the government's view when it comes to small businesses and what support will there be? 11:45 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Pocock. I certainly hear what you and Senator Lambie are saying in regard to the concerns that you are raising around this. We have gone through this quite considerably as a government, listening to all groups. We are firmly committed to employers having an active role in relation to PPL. We are committed to improving administrative processes for businesses, using government online services. We welcome a productive and outcomes focused discussion about ways that engage with Services Australia and how it can be made more simple and efficient for employers. As part of our reform, the government has committed to undertake an independent and multi-year evaluation to track the impact of the changes, which will help us identify where any refinements might be needed, particularly in the areas that you highlight today. This provides an opportunity to examine the impacts of PPL on businesses and their employees. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2403 moved together by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:51]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

11:55 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2198 revised together: (1) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 11 (line 2) to page 13 (line 17), omit "this Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "this Schedule". (2) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Other amendments Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 1 Section 6 Insert: small business employer: see subsection 101(7). 2 After paragraph 101(1)(c) Insert: (ca) the employer is not a small business employer; and 3 Subsection 101(2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 4 At the end of section 101 Add: Meaning of small business employer (7) An employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 20 employees at that time. 5 Subparagraph 207(3)(a)(i) Omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ca)". 6 Subsection 207(3) (note 2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 7 Subparagraph 224(2)(a)(i) Omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ca)". 8 Subsection 224(2) (note 2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 9 Application of amendments The amendments of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made by this Schedule apply in relation to claims made on or after the commencement of this item. 11:55 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government opposes these amendments. While those opposite have characterised parental leave as a welfare scheme, the government shares the view of the Productivity Commission, women's groups, family advocates, economists and trade unions. Paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement that should be administered by employers. Administering the payment is a reasonable contribution from employers, who significantly benefit from the government providing PPL to their employees. Each year the government spends around $460 million to provide PPL to employees in small businesses, and this directly contributes to higher retention rates for employees in small businesses, particularly women. Without the government payment, many employees in small businesses would not have access to any paid parental leave. This bill, which increases the scheme by an extra six weeks, is good for all employers and workers, as is our commitment to pay super on PPL from July 2025. 11:56 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I wasn't going to make a contribution, but, given the comments that we just heard from the minister opposite, I want to put very clearly on the record that the opposition has never referred to paid parental leave as a welfare scheme. I would ask her to reflect on coming in here and making comments that are clearly inaccurate. The opposition, when it was in government, was actually the first party to move on paid parental leave. We have a strong record of supporting government funded paid parental leave. It's important to note that the Labor government and the Greens are 14 years late on this particular policy. The coalition's paid parental leave policy, taken to the 2010 and 2013 federal election campaigns, included providing superannuation in the Commonwealth paid parental scheme, only for it to be opposed by Labor and the Greens. The minister has come in here and made these ridiculous false statements. I think the record of the coalition on this particular issue is absolutely documented by vote after vote and policy after policy for many, many years. To come in here and try to diminish the contribution of the coalition in relation to paid parental leave as a legislated workplace entitlement for women to make sure that they can choose to take time off to look after their children but remain connected to the workplace is, I think, an absolute disgrace and reflects terribly on you, Minister, and your government. 11:58 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I appreciate your response there, Senator Ruston. What I would like to point out is that my reference was to those opposite who've characterised parental leave as a welfare scheme, and I do believe you may wish to have a discussion with Senator Paterson about his statement to the media on it. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2198 revised moved together by leave by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:03]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

12:06 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I move Australian Greens requests Nos (1) to (3) on sheet 2455 together: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: Note: The provisions of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Regulations 2018 amended by this Act, and any other provisions of those Regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under section 80 of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (see subsection 13(5) of the Legislation Act 2003). (3) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Superannuation for employer-funded parental leave pay Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 1 Subsection 6(1) Insert: child: without limiting who is a child of another person for the purposes of this Act, a person is the child of another person if the person is a child of the other person within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975. medical practitioner means a person registered, or licensed, as a medical practitioner under a law of a State or Territory that provides for the registration or licensing of medical practitioners. parental leave includes leave that: (a) is taken by a person who is required or entitled to take the leave under: (i) a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or (ii) an industrial instrument (however described); or (iii) a contract of employment or any other agreement; and (b) is associated with: (i) the birth of a child of the person or the person's partner; or (ii) the placement of a child with the person or the person's partner for adoption; or (iii) the permanent placement of a child with the person or the person's partner in accordance with recognised cultural child rearing practices; or (iv) the delivery of a stillborn child of the person or the person's partner; or (v) if the person is pregnant—a period before the expected birth of a child of the person during which a medical practitioner considers that the person is not fit for work or that it is inadvisable for the person to continue work in the person's present position. stillborn, in relation to a child, has the same meaning as in the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. 2 After paragraph 11(1)(ba) Insert: (bb) payments for a period of parental leave; and 3 Section 27 Before "The", insert "(1)". 4 At the end of section 27 Add: (2) However: (a) an employee must not be prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (1)(d) only because the employee is paid salary or wages that are payments for a period of parental leave; and (b) salary or wages that are payments for a period of parental leave must not be prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (1)(e). Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Regulations 2018 5 Section 5 (definition of parental leave ) Repeal the definition. 6 Paragraph 12(1)(a) Repeal the paragraph. 7 In the appropriate position in Part 8 Insert: 28 Application — repeals made by the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Act 2024 The repeal of the definition of parental leave in section 5 and the repeal of paragraph 12(1)(a), made by Schedule 3 to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Act 2024, apply in relation to salary or wages paid for days occurring on or after 1 July 2024. 8 Application of amendments (1) The amendment of section 11 of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 made by this Schedule applies in relation to salary or wages paid for days occurring on or after 1 July 2024. (2) Subsection 27(2) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, as added by this Schedule, applies in relation to regulations made on or after the day this item commences. Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (3) Amendment (3) is framed as a request because it would amend the bill to expand the categories of salary or wages used to calculate whether an employer has a superannuation guarantee shortfall under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (SGA Act), to include payments for a period of parental leave. If an employer does not pay sufficient superannuation on salary or wages in accordance with the SGA Act, then the employer will have a superannuation guarantee shortfall under that Act. As the amendment expands the categories of salary or wages, the amendment will likely increase the superannuation guarantee shortfall calculated under the SGA Act. This would increase the amount of tax liable to be collected under the Superannuation Guarantee (Charges) Act 1992, and the amount the Commissioner of Taxation is required to pay under Part 8 of the SGA Act under the standing appropriation in section 71 of that Act. Amendments (1) and (2) Amendments (1) and (2) are consequential to amendment (3). Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (3) If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 71 of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request. Amendments (1) and (2) These amendments are consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request. This amendment relates to the paying of superannuation on the employer funded portion of paid parental leave. Unfortunately the chamber didn't see fit to support my previous amendment which was to ensure that government-paid super on the government portion of PPL would kick in earlier and women would not be made to wait, but this amendment pertains to the employer portion of PPL, where super should also be paid. 12:06 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government does not support this amendment. The government will be legislating to pay superannuation on government funded paid parental leave from July 2025. We are showing leadership in doing so and in helping to normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement. In recent decades there has been a steady increase in employers funding parental leave alongside the government scheme. Among employers who offer their own paid parental leave, the vast majority—around 86 per cent—pay super on that leave. The government encourages employers to meet this standard and, increasingly, employees expect it too. The government will continue to work with employers on these matters, and that's what the national strategy for gender equality is all about. 12:07 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I won't be supporting this amendment. It wasn't part of the consultation process. It was circulated on Friday, leaving no time to consult on it. Question negatived. 12:08 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I seek to have the Greens position recorded. The CHAIR 287062 It will be recorded. 12:08 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I too would like to have my support for the amendments recorded. The CHAIR 287062 It will be recorded. 12:08 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I move Australian Greens requests Nos (1) to (3) on sheet 2140 together: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 13 to 18), omit the item, substitute: 4 Paragraph 21(1)(a) Omit all the words after "a total of", substitute: ": (i) if the child is born before 1 July 2024—10 flexible PPL days; or (ii) if the child is born between 1 July 2024 and 30 June 2025—20 flexible PPL days; or (iii) if the child is born between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026—25 flexible PPL days; or (iv) if the child is born between 1 July 2026 and 30 June 2027—25 flexible PPL days; or (v) if the child is born between 1 July 2027 and 30 June 2028—30 flexible PPL days; or (vi) if the child is born between 1 July 2028 and 30 June 2029—35 flexible PPL days; or (vii) if the child is born between 1 July 2029 and 30 June 2030—35 flexible PPL days; or (viii) if the child is born on or after 1 July 2030—40 flexible PPL days; and". (2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 24 to 29), omit paragraphs 31ABA(1)(b) to (d), substitute: (b) for a child born between 1 July 2024 and 30 June 2025—130 flexible PPL days for the child; or (c) for a child born between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026—150 flexible PPL days for the child; or (d) for a child born between 1 July 2026 and 30 June 2027—170 flexible PPL days for the child; or (e) for a child born between 1 July 2027 and 30 June 2028—190 flexible PPL days for the child; or (f) for a child born between 1 July 2028 and 30 June 2029—210 flexible PPL days for the child; or (g) for a child born between 1 July 2029 and 30 June 2030—230 flexible PPL days for the child; or (h) for a child born on or after 1 July 2030—260 flexible PPL days for the child. (3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (lines 11 to 16), omit paragraphs 31ABA(2)(b) to (d), substitute: (b) for a child born between 1 July 2024 and 30 June 2025—110 flexible PPL days for the child; or (c) for a child born between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026—125 flexible PPL days for the child; or (d) for a child born between 1 July 2026 and 30 June 2027—145 flexible PPL days for the child; or (e) for a child born between 1 July 2027 and 30 June 2028—160 flexible PPL days for the child; or (f) for a child born between 1 July 2028 and 30 June 2029—175 flexible PPL days for the child; or (g) for a child born between 1 July 2029 and 30 June 2030—195 flexible PPL days for the child; or (h) for a child born on or after 1 July 2030—220 flexible PPL days for the child. Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to bring forward the increase in the maximum number of days for which paid parental leave can be paid from 1 July 2026 to 1 July 2024. The amendment also progressively increases the maximum number of days for which paid parental leave can be paid at the start of each financial year starting between 1 July 2025 and 1 July 2030. As this will increase the total amount of paid parental leave that can be paid in relation to children born on or after 1 July 2024, the amendment will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. Amendments (1) and (3) Amendments (1) and (3) are consequential to amendment (2). Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 307 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request. Amendments (1) and (3) These amendments are consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request. This amendment would implement one of the recommendations of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, whose recommendations, sadly, have been largely gathering dust on the shelf, despite them all being extremely meritorious. This amendment would say: 'Let's move up to 12 months paid parental leave by 2030.' Australia has been lagging behind comparable countries in terms of the length of PPL and, I might add, in terms of the rate. This amendment would redress that and would move us up to international best practice of 12 months by 2030. As I said, this was a WEET recommendation. I believe this policy is endorsed by many of the larger unions for good reasons. It's equitable. It will both help the development of young ones and also help continue that connection to the workforce predominantly for women since they, again, are the ones who predominantly take PPL. This is a really good idea, and the chamber should support it. 12:09 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government do not support this amendment. We're investing $1.2 billion over five years to expand the scheme to 26 weeks by 2026. It is the large expansion to paid parental leave since Labor introduced it in 2011. In addition, the government recently announced we will pay super on PPL from July 2025. Australia is one of the few OECD countries that have a parental leave scheme funded entirely by the taxpayer. Many OECD countries instead have contributory schemes where employees and employers make funding contributions. Australia takes a hybrid approach to parental leave, where the government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer provided leave. To extend the length of time parents can take off after birth or adoption, they can receive the government payment before, after or at the same time as employer paid leave. Parental leave has significant benefits for businesses, who also have a key role to play. The proportion of businesses providing their own paid parental leave has steadily increased to around two-thirds, up from less than half-a-decade ago. This positive trend demonstrates employers increasingly see themselves as having a role alongside government in providing paid parental leave, recognising it is a workplace entitlement rather than a welfare payment, and we want to see this trend keep going. 12:11 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I was expecting an answer that we might do this at some point in the future. Can I get some clarity: was that actually, 'We are not going to accept this Women's Economic Equality Taskforce recommendation,' because that's the first time I've heard anyone from government say that, if that's the case. 12:11 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory My understanding is we're focused on expanding the scheme for the 26 weeks at this particular point in time. 12:11 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Yes, Minister, but are you ruling out in the future extending PPL to 12 months by 2030 as the WEET recommended? 12:12 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I can say we're not ruling it out. 12:12 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Well can I humbly suggest that you vote for it now? The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that requests (1) to (3) on sheet 2140 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:17]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:19 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I move the final Greens requests for amendments, requests (1) to (3) on sheet 2141 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 13 to 18), omit the item, substitute: 4 Paragraph 21(1)(a) Omit "10", substitute "20". (2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 24 to 29), omit paragraphs 31ABA(1)(b) to (d), substitute: (b) for a child born on or after 1 July 2024—130 flexible PPL days for the child. (3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (lines 11 to 16), omit paragraphs 31ABA(2)(b) to (d), substitute: (b) for a child born on or after 1 July 2024—110 flexible PPL days for the child. Briefly for the chamber, this is another one where we are not making women wait. This bill would increase the amount of PPL up to 26 weeks by 2026. We support the increase to 26 weeks, but why do you need to wait until 2026 to do the good thing? Do the good thing now. That's what this amendment says. Make those 26 weeks available for new parents from this year, not 2026. Stop making women wait. 12:19 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government is investing a total of $1.2 billion over five years to expand the scheme to 26 weeks by 2026. It is the largest investment in PPL since Labor introduced it in 2011, and families will have access to more PPL than ever before. Our staged approach enables structural reform in a difficult fiscal environment. We do not support this. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the chair is that the requests for amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2141, as moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:21]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:24 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2404: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 11 (line 2) to page 13 (line 17) omit "this Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "this Schedule". (3) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Other amendments Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 1 Section 6 Insert: small business employer: see subsection 101(7). 2 After subsection 101(2) Insert: Effect of election by employer to not pay instalments (2A) Despite subsection (1), the Secretary must not make an employer determination, at a particular time, for a person and the person's employer if the Secretary is satisfied that: (a) the employer is a small business employer at that time; and (b) the employer has made an election under section 112A that applies to the person at that time. 3 At the end of section 101 Add: Meaning of small business employer (7) An employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 20 employees at that time. 4 Division 4 of Part 3-5 (heading) After "to pay", insert "or not pay". 5 Before section 109 Insert: Subdivision A — Election by employer to pay instalments 6 At the end of subsection 109(1) Add: Note: For the effect of an election under this section see subsection 101(2). 7 Subsections 110(1), 111(1) and 111(3) After "an election", insert "made under section 109". 8 Section 112 After "An election", insert "made under section 109". 9 At the end of Division 4 of Part 3-5 Add: Subdivision B — Election by small business employer to not pay instalments 112A Election by small business employer to not pay instalments (1) A small business employer may elect to not pay instalments to one or more employees of the employer by giving the Secretary a notice in accordance with subsections (3) and (4). Note: For the effect of an election under this section see subsection 101(2A). (2) However, an election does not affect an employer determination that has already been made. Note: The Secretary may revoke an employer determination that has already been made for the employer and a person under subsection 108(2). Requirements for elections (3) The notice must be in the approved form. (4) An election under subsection (1) must be expressed to apply in relation to: (a) one or more specified employees of the employer; or (b) one or more specified classes of employee of the employer; or (c) all employees of the employer. 112B Employer may withdraw an election (1) The employer may, at any time, withdraw an election made under section 112A by notice given to the Secretary in the form approved by the Secretary. (2) However, a withdrawal does not affect an employer determination that has already been made. 112C Secretary may cancel an election (1) The Secretary may cancel an election made under section 112A if the Secretary is satisfied that the employer is not a small business employer. (2) However, a cancellation does not affect an employer determination that has already been made. Note: The Secretary may revoke an employer determination that has already been made for the employer and a person under subsection 108(2). (3) If the Secretary cancels an election made under section 112A, the Secretary must give the employer a written notice advising the employer of that decision. The notice must contain any information prescribed by the PPL rules. 112D When an election is in force An election under section 112A remains in force from the time it is received by the Secretary until one of the following occurs: (a) if paragraph 112A(4)(a) applies—the specified employee's continuous flexible period for the child ends; (b) the Secretary receives notice under section 112B that the election has been withdrawn; (c) the election is cancelled under section 112C. 10 Paragraph 207(3)(b) Omit "determination.", substitute "determination; or". 11 After paragraph 207(3)(b) Insert: (c) at the time the determination was made, both: (i) the employer was a small business employer; and (ii) an election made by the employer under section 112A applied to the person and was in force. 12 At the end of subsection 207(3) Add: Note 3: Section 112A allows a small business employer to elect to not pay instalments to an employee, a class of employees or all employees of the employer. Subsection 101(2A) prohibits the Secretary from making an employer determination if the employer has made an election under section 112A that applies to the person. 13 Paragraph 207(6)(a) Before "specify", insert "if paragraph (3)(a) or (b) applies to the application—". 14 After paragraph 207(6)(b) Insert: (ba) if paragraph (3)(c) applies to the application—state whether the employer believes that, at the time the determination was made, the employer was a small business employer and an election made by the employer under section 112A applied to the person and was in force; and 15 After subparagraph 215(2)(a)(vii) Insert: (viia) subsection 112A(3); (viib) subsection 112B(1); 16 Paragraph 224(2)(b) Omit "determination.", substitute "determination; or". 17 After paragraph 224(2)(b) Insert: (c) at the time the determination was made, both: (i) the employer was a small business employer; and (ii) an election made by the employer under section 112A applied to the person and was in force. 18 At the end of subsection 224(2) Add: Note 3: Section 112A allows a small business employer to elect to not pay instalments to an employee, a class of employees or all employees of the employer. Subsection 101(2A) prohibits the Secretary from making an employer determination if the employer has made an election under section 112A that applies to the person. 19 Subparagraph 224(3)(c)(i) Before "specify", insert "if paragraph (2)(a) or (b) applies to the application—". 20 At the end of paragraph 224(3)(c) Add: ; and (iii) if paragraph (2)(c) applies to the application—state whether the employer believes that, at the time the determination was made, the employer was a small business employer and an election made by the employer under section 112A applied to the person and was in force. 21 Application of amendments The amendments of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made by this Schedule apply in relation to claims made on or after the commencement of this item. 12:24 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory As I've already said in this debate, the bill before parliament does not make any change to the longstanding employer role. What it does give to Australian families is more paid parental leave than ever before. This, in turn, is good for them, good for their employers and good for the economy. The government has heard compelling evidence from women's groups, family advocates, economists and unions about how the employer role in administering PPL is important for promoting gender equality. Removing this for small business would be a backward step. We will not support this. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2404, as moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:27]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

4 AYES Babet, R. (Teller) Lambie, J. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. 37 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:30 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie and Senator Babet, move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2405 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 11 (line 2) to page 13 (line 17), omit "this Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "this Schedule". (3) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Other amendments Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 1 Section 6 Insert: small business employer: see subsection 101(7). 2 Section 100 Omit: Under Division 2, the Secretary must make an employer determination if the Secretary is satisfied that certain conditions have been met. Not all of those conditions need to be satisfied for a person if the employer has made an election under Division 4 that applies to the person and the person consents to the employer paying the instalments. substitute: Under Division 2, the Secretary must make an employer determination if the Secretary is satisfied that certain conditions have been met. Not all of those conditions need to be satisfied in certain circumstances. 3 After paragraph 101(1)(c) Insert: (ca) the employer is not a small business employer; and 4 After subsection 101(2) Insert: Effect of employee consent (2A) Paragraph (1)(ca) does not apply in relation to a person if the person has consented in the claim to the employer paying instalments to the person. 5 At the end of section 101 Add: Meaning of small business employer (7) An employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 20 employees at that time. 6 Paragraph 207(3)(b) Omit "101(1)(d)", substitute "101(1)(ca), (d)". 7 At the end of subsection 207(3) Add: Note 3: Subsection 101(2A) deals with the application of paragraph 101(1)(ca) if the employee has consented to the employer paying instalments to the person. 8 Paragraph 224(2)(b) Omit "101(1)(d)", substitute "101(1)(ca), (d)". 9 At the end of subsection 224(2) Add: Note 3: Subsection 101(2A) deals with the application of paragraph 101(1)(ca) if the employee has consented to the employer paying instalments to the person. 10 Application of amendments The amendments of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made by this Schedule apply in relation to claims made on or after the commencement of this item. 12:30 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We will not be supporting these amendments. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2405, as moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to. Question negatived. 12:30 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I ask that my position in favour of the amendments be noted. The CHAIR 287062 Your position will be noted, as will the positions of the Jacqui Lambie Network and the United Australia Party. 12:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie and Senator Babet, move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2406 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 11 (line 2) to page 13 (line 17) omit "this Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "this Schedule". (3) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Other amendments Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 1 Section 6 Insert: small business employer: see subsection 101(7). 2 After subsection 101(3A) Insert: (3B) Despite subsection (1), the Secretary must not make an employer determination, at a particular time, for a person and the person's employer in relation to a child of the person if the Secretary is satisfied that: (a) the employer is a small business employer at that time; and (b) the person has given the Secretary notice in writing that the employee does not consent to the employer paying instalments to the person in relation to the child. 3 At the end of section 101 Add: Meaning of small business employer (7) An employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 20 employees at that time. 4 Application of amendments The amendments of section 101 of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made by this Schedule apply in relation to claims made on or after the commencement of this item. 12:31 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory As previously stated, we will oppose these amendments. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2406, as moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to. Question negatived. 12:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I would like my position noted again, Chair. The CHAIR 287062 The positions of the three parties that have put their names to those amendments will be recorded. 12:32 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie and Senator Babet, move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2408 together: 1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 11 (line 2) to page 13 (line 17), omit "this Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "this Schedule". (3) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Other amendments Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 1 Section 6 Insert: small business employer: see subsection 101(7). 2 After paragraph 101(1)(c) Insert: (ca) the employer is not a small business employer; and 3 Subsection 101(2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 4 At the end of section 101 Add: Meaning of small business employer (7) An employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 15 employees at that time. 5 Subparagraph 207(3)(a)(i) Omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ca)". 6 Subsection 207(3) (note 2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 7 Subparagraph 224(2)(a)(i) Omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ca)". 8 Subsection 224(2) (note 2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 9 Application of amendments The amendments of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made by this Schedule apply in relation to claims made on or after the commencement of this item. 12:32 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government opposes these amendments. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2408, as moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to. Question negatived. The CHAIR 287062 We will record the position of parties whose names were put to that motion. 12:32 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I would also like to note the opposition's support for the previous amendments moved by Senator David Pocock. The CHAIR 287062 It will be noted that the opposition supported those amendments. 12:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie and Senator Babet, move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2409 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 11 (line 2) to page 13 (line 17), omit "this Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "this Schedule". (3) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Other amendments Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 1 Section 6 Insert: small business employer: see subsection 101(7). 2 After paragraph 101(1)(c) Insert: (ca) the employer is not a small business employer; and 3 Subsection 101(2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 4 At the end of section 101 Add: Meaning of small business employer (7) An employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 10 employees at that time. 5 Subparagraph 207(3)(a)(i) Omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ca)". 6 Subsection 207(3) (note 2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 7 Subparagraph 224(2)(a)(i) Omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ca)". 8 Subsection 224(2) (note 2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 9 Application of amendments The amendments of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made by this Schedule apply in relation to claims made on or after the commencement of this item. 12:33 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government opposes these amendments. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2409, as moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to. Question negatived. The CHAIR 287062 Again, the position of Senator Pocock, the Jacqui Lambie Network and the United Australia Party in support of the amendments will be recorded. 12:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory There are going to be some young mums spending hours and hours administering PPL that Services Australia could be paying directly, but we will move on. I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2410 together. Leave granted. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie and Senator Babet, move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2410: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 11 (line 2) to page 13 (line 17), omit "this Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "this Schedule". (3) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Other amendments Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 1 Section 6 Insert: small business employer: see subsection 101(7). 2 After paragraph 101(1)(c) Insert: (ca) the employer is not a small business employer; and 3 Subsection 101(2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 4 At the end of section 101 Add: Meaning of small business employer (7) An employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 5 employees at that time. 5 Subparagraph 207(3)(a)(i) Omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ca)". 6 Subsection 207(3) (note 2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 7 Subparagraph 224(2)(a)(i) Omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ca)". 8 Subsection 224(2) (note 2) Omit "and (c)", substitute ", (c) and (ca)". 9 Application of amendments The amendments of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made by this Schedule apply in relation to claims made on or after the commencement of this item. 12:34 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government will be opposing these amendments. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2410, as moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to. Question negatived. The CHAIR 287062 The position of Senator David Pocock, the Jacqui Lambie Network and the United Australia Party in support of those amendments will be recorded. 12:34 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie and Senator Babet, move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2438 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, items 16 and 17, page 11 (line 2) to page 13 (line 17), omit "this Act" (wherever occurring), substitute "this Schedule". (3) Page 14 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Other amendments Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 1 Section 6 Insert: small business employer: see subsection 101(7). 2 Section 100 Omit: Under Division 2, the Secretary must make an employer determination if the Secretary is satisfied that certain conditions have been met. Not all of those conditions need to be satisfied for a person if the employer has made an election under Division 4 that applies to the person and the person consents to the employer paying the instalments. substitute: Under Division 2, the Secretary must make an employer determination if the Secretary is satisfied that certain conditions have been met. Not all of those conditions need to be satisfied in certain circumstances. 3 After paragraph 101(1)(c) Insert: (ca) the employer is not a small business employer; and 4 After subsection 101(2) Insert: Effect of employee consent (2A) Paragraph (1)(ca) does not apply in relation to a person if the person has consented in the claim to the employer paying instalments to the person. 5 At the end of section 101 Add: Meaning of small business employer (7) An employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 10 employees at that time. 6 Paragraph 207(3)(b) Omit "101(1)(d)", substitute "101(1)(ca), (d)". 7 At the end of subsection 207(3) Add: Note 3: Subsection 101(2A) deals with the application of paragraph 101(1)(ca) if the employee has consented to the employer paying instalments to the person. 8 Paragraph 224(2)(b) Omit "101(1)(d)", substitute "101(1)(ca), (d)". 9 At the end of subsection 224(2) Add: Note 3: Subsection 101(2A) deals with the application of paragraph 101(1)(ca) if the employee has consented to the employer paying instalments to the person. 10 Application of amendments The amendments of the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 made by this Schedule apply in relation to claims made on or after the commencement of this item. 12:35 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government opposes these amendments. Question negatived. The CHAIR 287062 The positions of Senator David Pocock, the Jacqui Lambie Network and the United Australia Party are to be recorded as in support of that motion. There being no other contributions in committee, I put the question that the bill stand as printed. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 33 12:36 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory 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 33

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023

Second Reading 33 12:37 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I was saying that the government must remain accountable for the expenditure of taxpayers' money and that, if this ARC Board goes on a frolic of its own and starts irresponsibly approving improper expenditure, which is most improper in itself, the taxpayer will suffer. I make the point in relation to this irresponsible proposal to remove ministerial discretion on ARC grant programs that ministerial discretion exists for most programs across government. This discretion ensures that taxpayers' money is spent on projects which align with the national interest and on things that will advance Australia as a nation. So, despite protests by the government that it is taking the so-called politics out of the ARC, what it is actually doing is removing itself from any accountability in relation to a very large amount of funds which are spent in the name of the taxpayer. This is not only lazy and unacceptable but most improper. The government and the Greens have concocted a ridiculous narrative claiming political intervention by the coalition, and I just want to reiterate that the coalition objected to just 32 grant decisions since 2005—just 32. Many of these grant decisions included excess travel costs to international destinations. The projects, by their very nature, did not make it clear how they would advance Australia's interests. So, for example, I will refer to a $200,000 project titled 'Classical love in modern times: transformations in the keystaging profession in colonial Korea'. There was $124,000 on a project titled 'Queer career: a cultural history'; and $161,000 on a project called 'On beauty and ugliness as persuasive tools in changing China's gender norms'. I'm not disputing that there may be some merit in this research, if a researcher wants to fund this research him or herself, or an institution wants to fund this research. But this is not the type of research which should be funded by the taxpayer. The absolute sheer hypocrisy of this government in running this pathetic narrative, claiming they're taking the politics out of the ARC, when in fact the minister is preserving his right to approve grants concerning tens of millions of dollars—they are the projects which give him the opportunity to cut the ribbon, to make the big announcements. I mean, it is absolutely pathetic. And it is a reflection of this pathetic government, pathetic in so many respects, pathetic in safeguarding taxpayers' money. So removing ministerial discretion is just absurd, and regrettably the Greens played into the government's hands in not even calling out this hypocrisy. The Australian Research Council receives more than $1 billion in funding each year, with nearly $900 million distributed through grants. We are talking an incredible amount of money. Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going, and to expect the government of the day to ensure it is spent on projects which will support the Australian people. That's a key issue here. The government has absolved itself from its responsibility. Hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money will now be outsourced to a so-called independent board. Where are the safeguards to stop the board going on a frolic of its own? Say there's an application for a research program of $500,000 that involves $400,000 of international travel and accommodation with dubious merit. This weak and pathetic minister now puts himself and the government in the position where he can no longer intervene. That is an absolute disgrace. The taxpayers of this country deserve better than that. The government doesn't even have the temerity to produce the ARC financial sustainability report, which it's also trying to keep secret—another shocking example of this completely appalling government. 12:43 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023. The Greens have been pushing for this change, to get rid of ministerial intervention into ARC grant applications, ever since I came into the Senate five years ago. Because an independent, well funded, robust research sector is essential. This bill is a welcome step in a move towards a more independent ARC. The Greens will be supporting the bill and attempting to improve it. As a former researcher and academic, ensuring a thriving, publicly well-funded research community free from political interference is close to my heart and something I have long worked on. We know that research independence and academic freedom are critical to our collective public good and to a thriving democratic culture, yet far too often in recent decades we have seen that independence and freedom undermined for political reasons or the juvenile hatred of the arts and the social sciences, as was the case with the coalition government. Some may not remember that the ARC was previously governed by a board when it was set up in 2001 as an independent statutory body. Yet in 2006 the coalition government abolished the ARC board, a move that undermined research in this country. There is no other way to describe it. At the time, the NTEU rightly emphasised the importance of the ARC board as a buffer against the political whims of the government of the day—the exact opposite of what the coalition, the opposition, is trying to tell us today. Since the board was dismantled, researchers have continued to raise deep concerns about political interference, which has become an increasing reality over the years. We know that, on at least six occasions, at least four ministers have intervened and rejected over 30 research proposals. All four of those ministers have been Liberal ministers. So it's no wonder there is a lot of huffing and puffing going on on that side of the chamber today as this avenue for ministerial intervention is finally removed. These proposals are recommended for funding by the ARC following a rigorous and expert peer review process, and that's the way it should be. It is ridiculous that politicians with next to no research expertise have been making captain's calls about the value of research in total contradiction to the ARC's extensive and expert processes of peer review. How dangerous and damaging for our research and our research community! I introduced a bill in 2018 to remove the ministerial veto over ARC grant approvals to bring an end to this destructive practice. This was one of my first bills in the Senate, because ensuring our research remains untainted by political ideology and influence is a cause that holds deep significance for me. I said it then, and I'll say it again, because it's just as true now: no minister should be able to dictate which research projects are funded and which ones are not. The true test of academic freedom is that it must be free from political interference, no matter who is in government. It should be based on an independent and rigorous assessment process. We need to trust our peer review processes. Researchers work incredibly hard applying for an ARC grant, but overall success rates still remain below 18 per cent, and that surely calls for more research funding. Academics deserve to be supported in pursuing research with independence and freedom and without fear that their work might be stopped or curtailed by the government of the day for political reasons. For years, researchers have continued to raise the alarm. So frustrated have some in the research community been that members of the ARC's own college of experts have resigned in protest of the ministerial veto power. In 2022, the presidents of Australia's five learned academies together stated: When the integrity of Australia's research system is compromised by perceived, or actual, political interference, there are real costs to the research sector and indeed the nation—as trust is eroded and the relationships researchers have with industry, the Australian community, and international partners are damaged. In the 2022 Senate inquiry on my bill, more than 85 per cent of the 80 submissions supported the removal of the veto power. During that historic inquiry, researchers and academic groups raised deep concerns that the ministerial veto power was damaging academic freedom and having a chilling effect and causing self-censorship in the research community. Stakeholders told us that political interference disproportionately impacted First Nations researchers and threatened the integrity of the peer review process, and many high-profile researchers and academics raised serious concerns that political interference undermined Australia's international research reputation. While Labor and the coalition failed to support my bill, despite overwhelming support for this much needed reform, my work and the work of the research community secured a unanimous recommendation out of the bill inquiry for an independent review of the ARC. This became the first comprehensive review of the ARC in over 20 years, since the introduction of the ARC Act in 2001. And I am very proud of my team and so many in the research community that I worked alongside to secure recommendations from this review to end ministerial veto power, which is what this bill implements today. After rejecting my bill in 2018, it is welcome to see that Labor has finally accepted the need for the ARC to be given autonomy to make decisions over research grants. I welcome the establishment of an ARC board that will have responsibility for deciding whether to fund the bulk of the research projects. Peer review and research experts should make decisions on research funding, not politicians. And I congratulate the research community who have pushed long and hard for this change. This is a big win for everyone who has worked to end political and ideological interference in research, and it has been a privilege to work with so many of them. This bill also makes headway in transparency of the minister's role in funding decisions by requiring publications of any directions that the minister gives to the ARC. Back in September 2022, my order for the production of documents revealed that ministerial direction had led to revisions to the national interest test statement in more than 60 per cent of the applications, affecting applications in the Discovery Indigenous 2023 scheme at nearly three times the average rate. The changes made by this bill will give us greater insight into decision-making of the ARC and will, again, hopefully lead to less political interference. The ARC review and this bill are an opportunity to get things right, once and for all, and for that we do need some improvements in the bill. I will be moving committee-of-the-whole amendments to make this bill stronger, and we have negotiated agreement with the minister's office on some of these amendments. On matters of political interference, the ARC review recommended the minister retain a veto power on ARC research funding for reasons of national security, but unfortunately this bill goes a bit further. This bill empowers the minister to not approve and to terminate research funding for reasons related to the international relations of Australia. The Greens and many in the research community are concerned that this could provide the minister a much wider discretion to intervene in decisions of research funding. These concerns are shared by the Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and others. The breadth of the international relations power is particularly concerning because, in determining whether to veto research funding for international relations reasons, the bill explicitly notes that the minister may regard any matter they consider appropriate. We think this is too broad a discretion and it presents a risk because this bill makes it an object of the ARC to include supporting Australian universities to conduct research and collaboration with international partners, so this could become a hinderance to that collaboration. The Greens want to narrow this ministerial discretion, and we will be moving an amendment to that effect. The bill also empowers the minister to specify in regulations new designated research programs under which the funding for individual research projects is decided solely by the minister and not by the ARC board. While these regulations would be disallowable, concerns have been raised with me that this risks the minister taking sole decision-making power over a wide range of funding decisions on individual grants. These concerns have been expressed by universities, by university peak bodies and by researchers. Research funding should be decided through a rigorous peer review process and research expertise, not by the minister of the day. I will be making some amendments to make sure that this very broad decision-making power at least is not without greater oversight. There are also concerns about political interference and delays in relation to whether funding rules are disallowable. The current situation is that ARC funding rules, also known as grant guidelines, are prepared by the ARC and approved by the minister. The funding rules are tabled in parliament but are not disallowable. This bill would change that and make funding rules disallowable. Many are concerned that this introduces a new form of political intervention and risks delays to research funding. To avoid the risk of delays, I will be moving an amendment to retain the current situation where funding rules are not subject to disallowance. Ending political interference in the ARC is key to a thriving and independent research sector, but so is sufficient funding, which the government has so far failed to address in response to the ARC review and also in the Universities Accord. Research funding in Australia is abysmally low compared to other OECD nations, with both Labor and coalition governments having failed to fund vital, fundamental research. Australian research has so much potential, but this will never be fulfilled without substantial and sustainable long-term public funding. As many universities and researchers have urged, the government must significantly increase overall research funding and ensure that the cost of implementing this bill does not reduce existing research funding. University funding is so vital if we are to solve the complex and wicked problems of the climate crisis, inequality, global justice and health emergencies—among many others. We must also urgently address the job insecurity, precarious work and casualisation which are rampant in universities, but are also rife across the research sector. We cannot allow our universities to continue operating off the exploitation of staff. Only one in four researchers are employed on a continuing basis. It is worse for women, with only one in five women employed on an ongoing basis. A whopping 80 per cent of researchers are on fixed term contracts of less than three years in length, and a third of the workforce has been on rolling fixed term contracts for over six years. In addition, PhD stipends sit below the poverty line, pushing students to the brink in a cost-of-living crisis. Researchers deserve secure, well-paid jobs, and PhD students should have a generous, liveable research stipend and full entitlement to paid parental leave. While addressing job security requires a whole-of-sector approach, the ARC are one of the largest funders of research and they must play a role in this. We will be moving an amendment so the ARC supports ongoing jobs. Lastly, decision-making bodies in higher education should be democratically elected and diverse, including the ARC. The Greens welcome the bill's initiative to help ensure the ARC board reflects underrepresented groups. It is particularly important that the bill requires a First Nations person to be on the board at all times. We would like to strengthen the minister's obligation to ensure a diverse board and increase the size of the board so its membership can be more diverse. For far too long the research sector has been plagued by political interference, underfunding and job insecurity. This bill is a welcome step to address some of these issues, but there is still work to do. The Greens and I will continue to work to ensure more public funding for an expanding and thriving research sector with diverse and democratic governance where researchers have academic freedom, secure jobs and fair pay. 12:58 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023. The coalition has always recognised the importance of quality research. It's important for the future of our country to have research in important areas that will advance Australia's standing on a global stage and that we have proper and targeted investment. The coalition's track record on this is something that I'm very proud of. The coalition has always recognised the importance of high-quality research. We have always prioritised cutting-edge, innovative research which advances our nation, meets our national priorities and supports our economy and society. Our research sector is absolutely vital in ensuring that Australia remains globally competitive. However, every dollar spent on research by the taxpayers of this country should be in the national interest. It should always, not just occasionally, be in the national interest, because taxpayers work hard for their money and they expect that any money that is spent by the government should in the national interest. Responsible government is a fundamental tenant of our parliamentary democracy. Government has a legitimate role to play in determining funding to reflect policy decisions while ultimately remaining accountable to the Australian taxpayers. This brings me to the problem we have with the bill. It undermines parliamentary democracy, it undermines the primacy of this place and the Australian people, indeed, in electing government, who then appoint ministers responsible for the decisions of government. This bill does away with ministerial responsibility when it comes to the expenditure of good, hard-earned resources and puts it in the hands of a board, rather than ministers being completely and ultimately responsible for funding decisions and for directing funding towards grants that researchers will use. The coalition is opposed to this bill because it removes ministerial discretion on grant funding decisions. This bill—for anyone following at home—establishes the board, rather than the minister, as the accountable authority, with the ability to design and set grant guidelines and approve a wide range of grant funding decisions, including those for discovery projects, linkage projects and the fellowship programs, amounting to $895 million in expenditure in 2022-23. I am not talking about a small sum of money here but about nearly $1 billion in expenditure. It's not enough that this bill makes an exception for ministerial intervention for funding decisions made under defence, security and international relations concerns. The minister should always be accountable and responsible to this place and to the Australian people. This bill effectively outsources the grant-funding decision to a board, whose members will be unaccountable to parliament. It's fair enough the minister would receive by way of a council or by way of a reference group or experts in the fields of the domains of research as to what projects, grants, should be approved and otherwise. That is perfectly acceptable. But to completely outsource the decision-making to a group of people who are not elected by the Australian people, who are not appointed by the Governor-General, is just unacceptable. They are a group of people who are not elected by the Australian people, who are not appointed by the Governor-General to serve as a minister of the Crown, so it's a bridge too far. This bill outsources the grant funding decision to a board whose members will be unaccountable to parliament. This is inconsistent with the principle of responsible government and it is most certainly not in the national interest. Transferring the decision-making responsibility away from the minister to the board effectively suggests that it is the board, not the minister, nor the parliament, that is more informed about our national priorities than the elected government. What is it that this bill is signalling here? Is it the case that the minister is not aware of what is in our national interest so they have to outsource it to another group? That's what you've been elected to do. When you put your hand up to be a member of parliament and to form a government, you are saying that you believe you are responsible, that you have the intellect, knowledge, awareness and capability to lead the nation, knowing what is going to be in the best interests of the nation. Outsourcing such significant expenditure of taxpayer money in this way is, to me, a significant diversion away from responsible government. It's very, very disappointing and, I think, enlightening to see the priorities of this government. We're not talking about a small sum of money. If it was just a small grant program with maybe a couple of million dollars attached to it—that's still a large sum of money—then, sure, why tie up ministers and their staff and the department's resources with that low level of interaction? But we're talking about nearly a billion dollars in research. It ought to come across the minister's desk on every occasion. To outsource it in this way is irresponsible. It's another example of this government's utter failure to act in the best interests of Australian taxpayers. The coalition's track record proves that we have always been a party of responsible government and sound decision-making. Those on the other side might like to kick up a fuss about this, but our track record speaks for itself. Of the thousands upon thousands of grant approvals that have crossed the desks of the coalition education ministers, only 32 have been rejected since 2005. Of the 600 Discovery Projects awarded in 2021-22, only six were rejected. That's a mere one per cent. In monetary terms, in terms of total expenditure, it's barely half a percentage point. The number also includes those projects rejected on national security grounds. But let's not forget that those projects that were rejected were, frankly, rejected for good, sound reasons—for example, the absolute waste of taxpayers' dollars that would otherwise have been spent, if it weren't for the fact that it was rejected, on a research project that was going to look at 'beauty and ugliness as persuasive tools in changing China's gender norms' or on a research project that was going to look at the 'Soviet cinema in Hollywood before the blacklist, 1917-1950', which was originally entitled 'Red Hollywood: Communist style before the blacklist 1917-1950'. Thank goodness those projects were rejected. Thank goodness a minister who was accountable to this place, and accountable to the Australian people, rejected those projects. It couldn't be in the national interest to fund that sort of nonsense. While these projects might, it is granted, have had some abstract academic research merit, they certainly didn't pass the pub test. How would these projects have advanced our national economic, social, environmental or cultural interests? I've got no doubt that, for good reason, the minister who was responsible at the time when those projects were put across their desk rejected them because they didn't meet that criterion. Each didn't advance our national economic, social, environmental or cultural interests. The proposals could not prove that they provided some kind of net benefit for the Australian community, so why should they, then, suck up funding from Australian taxpayers? They were rejected. But we're now going to have a board that's not accountable to this place and is not ultimately accountable to the Australian people making decisions about the kinds of research programs that will be supported and funded and, in fact, writing the grant guidelines and setting the terms under which they're going to be awarded. That's completely irresponsible. Set up a board of experts across the various fields of research to provide advice to the minister, absolutely; there's no question about it. I don't in any way cast any shade over the merit of the people who are being selected here—I'm not sure who exactly they will be—but there should be accountability to this place, and the only one who is ultimately responsible is the minister. We're outsourcing this to an unaccountable group of people. It's unacceptable. Responsible government is a simple concept. Responsible government equals responsible spending of taxpayer dollars; it's straightforward. This government is proving to have no idea—in fact, they're extremely uncomfortable with the idea. They would remove this layer of accountability from a government body that is responsible for allocating millions of dollars in taxpayers' expenditure. Perhaps it's merely a diversionary tactic from Labor to distract from yet another broken promise of this government. The Prime Minister has broken his promise to the Australian people across a number of fronts since the election, and here is another example of where the government are not being true to what they promised the Australian people. For example, in 2022, before the election, there was a promise to lift expenditure research to three per cent of GDP. This seems to be heading the same way as all the other promises. The Prime Minister said that his word was his bond and that the government would stick to the stage 3 tax cuts. Obviously, the Prime Minister backed away on that. He misled the Australian people on that one. Here we go. They've promised to lift research expenditure to three per cent of GDP, and this promise is headed in the same direction. They are more than halfway through their term, and we've yet to see a single cent delivered on this promise that they would lift research—a promise, that was made to the Australian people. We must have targeted research that is advancing the national interest. It is critical to our prosperity and the future of this country that we have good research that is advancing our national interests, across various aspects of the economy. It is critical that we have effective research. We're more than halfway through this term, and we're yet to see a single cent spent by this government on extra funding or to get anywhere near that three per cent of GDP. They're a long way off. Instead, more than $102 million was cut from the research sector. So there was a promise to increase it, and the last MYEFO update in December showed that $102 million was actually cut. Two significant research projects had their funding slashed. Australia's Economic Accelerator program had $46.2 million cut from it, while the Regional Research Collaboration Program had $56.3 million stripped from it. 'My word is my bond,' the Prime Minister said. I wouldn't take that to the bank. That's because, as we're seeing across so many areas of this government's and the Prime Minister's decision-making, they don't follow through with what they say that they will do. They're not true to their word. They mislead the Australian people. They're quite happy to do that continuously. Here we have another example of that. I wouldn't take the Prime Minister's commitment or his word to the bank any time. That is not a bond that you want to rely on. It's just another show of blatant hypocrisy from the Albanese government. The government ought to reconsider its position on this bill because they are taking decision-making and accountability away from a minister that can come into either this place or the other place and be accountable to the parliament and give an account of every decision that they make. Instead, we're outsourcing it. 13:13 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023. It's always a pleasure to follow my colleague from Western Australia Senator O'Sullivan. I too wish to go through some of the issues Senator O'Sullivan raised, particularly to challenge some of the straw men that Senator Faruqi raised in her contribution earlier—the idea that those on this side of the chamber are somehow anti arts and anti arts research. This is just an absolute nonsense. I stand here as the holder of an honours degree in history—something I am very proud of. In fact, my dissertation probably qualifies in the slightly wonky, slightly nerdy category. It was looking at the political historiography of the American Revolution. So it's not something that's everybody's cup of tea, and I understand that, but I do absolutely value arts research. It is something that is highly valued. But what we have here is an organisation that has direct responsibility for looking at how government research dollars are spent. Government research dollars are not the only research dollars within the funding pool of research dollars; there are other sources of funding, including philanthropy and including university direct grants. What we have here through the ARC is a set of grants that must always be about the priorities of Australia as a nation and making sure that limited dollars—and it is a limited dollar pool; it can never be as much money as everyone would perhaps like it to be—are spent in a way that is in our national interest. It's a broad definition of 'national interest', as Senator O'Sullivan read it out, but it is important that, through that process of spending taxpayers' money, there are suitable accountability mechanisms and we do not merely say that handing this off to an unelected group of five, six or seven people is an acceptable outcome. The fact is that in these decision-making organisations there can be groupthink. There can be small circles of people, particularly in certain niche research areas, where the peer group is so small that any idea of independence disappears out the window. If you have a small group of unelected people making decisions in this space, you do risk undermining the confidence the Australian people will have in our research system. Rather than enhancing it, which is supposedly what those opposite want to do, you actually risk undermining it, because things of questionable value will slip through. Ministerial discretion, as Senator O'Sullivan outlined very clearly, has been used on a merely a handful of occasions in the course of the history of the Australian Research Council. It is not something that was used on a daily basis. It was not something that was used to control, direct or interfere with the ARC. It was used on a very small number of occasions where clear issues were raised about whether particular research was of sufficient value to the Australian community to warrant—I ask all those listening to remember this—taxpayer funding of that research. The ARC is in a very difficult position because it's got to balance the nuts and bolts of practical research that can have a positive outcome on people's lives—things like health research that can make a literal life-or-death difference to people in this country and right around the world through flow-on effects—with studies in, perhaps, less immediately impactful fields such as the arts. So it is completely legitimate for ministerial discretion to be exercised in such cases where there is no obvious benefit to the Australian community through the research being undertaken. Senator O'Sullivan read out some of the titles of those that had been rejected. Again, that is not to say these projects weren't—you know, somebody had a passion for these projects, and good on them for having a passion for these projects. The question is not that. The question is not whether individual academics had a passion for these projects. The question is whether these projects were of benefit to the Australian community. 'Spectacles, dress and second-wave feminism in the Philippines'—it's hard to see. I admit I haven't read the abstract of that research project, but, given that it went through a ministerial reassessment, I find it absolutely conceivable that a minister could determine that that project wasn't in the best interests of or didn't add value to the Australian community. Again, that is not to say that project shouldn't go ahead. If a researcher has passion for it, there are philanthropic pathways to get academic research dollars and there are pathways through universities to get academic research dollars. That project could well have gone ahead. But did it pass that threshold test that we talked about of being of benefit to the Australian community? Remember, in a limited pool of funding, that project is going up against projects in the health space which can have real-life impacts, life-and-death impacts, on people. It's going up against projects in the industrial space which may see breakthroughs in technology that benefit not just Australians but people right around the world. So it is quite legitimate to say that ministerial oversight, which is in practice extraordinarily rarely used, is worthwhile keeping in the system. It is not good enough to say: 'Here's a billion dollars. We're going to hand this off to an unelected group of individuals with no parliamentary oversight.' Senator Faruqi talked about removing the right of this chamber to scrutinise the legislative instruments associated with the Australian Research Council grant guidelines. I think that's an absolutely appropriate right for this chamber to have. If those grant guidelines were, for example, biased in one direction, then this chamber should not only scrutinise those guidelines but have the right to reject those guidelines. To say otherwise is to abrogate the power of this parliament. It's lessening the power and responsibility of the minister to do his or her duty in ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent in the most effective way possible for and on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia and the whole Australian community. I think that that is a path we should be very wary of going down. Research and development, basic research, is of fundamental importance. Ensuring that we have the best possible system with appropriate checks and balances and appropriate ministerial oversight is absolutely essential. One of the great ironies of this bill that the government has put forward is that the minister has retained the ability to approve grants in other designated programs such as the ARC Centres of Excellence, the Industrial Transformation Training Centres and the Industrial Transformation Research Hubs. This has never adequately been explained to me: why is it good enough to retain that discretion in those areas but not in terms of the ARC grants, particularly when we have on the record examples—Senator O'Sullivan went through some of them, and I mentioned another one—of things that are hard to justify as adding value to the Australian community and there are limited research dollars available? 13:24 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Research is important. The coalition, when we were in government, always recognised the importance of high-quality research. We want to make sure that researchers are working on the cutting edge, that their research is innovative but it's also aimed at advancing our nation, putting Australia first, and aligns with our priorities and is working towards outcomes that support our economy and our communities and our society. There are lots and lots of brilliant minds in our country, and we, as a coalition government, wanted to work with those minds, we wanted to support those minds, we wanted to make sure that they had their chance to contribute to our wonderful country, to our community and to the economy, to actually make a contribution to what, quite often—if you look at some of the projects that Australians have been responsible for in the past—have led to changes to the global environment—we had a little bit to do with wi-fi. These projects have made significant improvements and changes to people's lives all around the world. We want to make sure that research is funded and we want to make sure that every single dollar that's spent on research is done so in a way that it is in the national interest; it's not something that goes against our interest as a country, that doesn't look like it will have any impact at all in securing and ensuring our future as we go forward. In fact, under the coalition's $2.2 billion investment in the university research commercialisation package. This $2.2 billion was a key factor of our support, and there were key initiatives to reform Australia's research commercialisation landscape. And when we talk about research commercialisation, it's all well and good to come up with an idea in a laboratory, come up with a new product or come up with a new advancement in technology, but unless you can actually take that out and reach the marketplace, unless that can then be put into something that's actually of use to people, it doesn't achieve very much. So you do want to see a commercialisation outcome coming from a lot of the research that you're doing. We wanted to place our national priorities at the heart of that research. To think that that wouldn't remain a consistent priority is almost gobsmacking. We wanted to make sure that funded research by the Australian government was placing our national priorities at its core. We were also looking to work with these organisations and researchers to ensure those commercialisation opportunities were something that were on their agenda, well within reach, that was well supported. We wanted to see university research funding reform that actually strengthened genuine collaboration between researchers and industry. We wanted to see researchers actually looking for things and exploring new ideas and new ways of doing things that was actually working with industry, that was working in tandem together and supporting each other. We didn't want to put good money into something that's going nowhere or goes into an outcome somewhere that no-one in industry is looking for. You want to make sure there is genuine collaboration between the two. You also want to make sure that you're investing in the people because at the very heart of this, at the very core of this, in the organisations that conduct the research, it is an individual, it is a person doing this work. We want to make sure those people are skilled. We want to make sure they're supported. We want to make sure that they are achieving the best they can. We did put in place a number of mechanisms to drive these reforms. There were five key strategic and targeted investments that we made. There was the 243 Trailblazer Universities Program to boost research development and to drive commercialisation outcomes. There was a $150 million capital injection to expand the CSIRO Main Sequence venture programs, which backs start-up companies to create commercial opportunities. There was $296 million for 1,800 industry PhDs, over 800 in new fellowships, the creation of a new IP framework for universities to support greater university industry collaboration and the uptake of research outputs. And, of course, there was $1.6 billion over 10 years for Australia's Economic Accelerator, a new stage-gated competitive funding program aimed to help university projects bridge the so-called valley of death on the road to commercialisation. As I've said, it is all about making sure that industry and research are operating in tandem with each other, that we're not working in opposite directions to the other and that there is ample opportunity for those researchers, those organisations, those university-led research programs to actually commercialise whatever technology they devise and develop to ensure that allows for further investment in further research. So where are we today? How have things changed? Why has there been the change that we now see around the way in which the Australian Research Council will work and operate and how research will be treated in this country? Like everything we see from those opposite, it is under a veil of secrecy. We know that they like to keep things as opaque as possible. They also like to remove themselves from ever being responsible or ever having to be held accountable in any shape of form. What we are seeing here is that the Minister for Education is removing his oversight of the ARC board and the grants that they are able to hand out. These are taxpayer funded. It's your money. It's all Australian taxpayers' money that is handed out for these grants, and taxpayers should expect that when the money they give to the federal government is then doled out, it is doled out with some sort of oversight. But, no, when it comes to having any sort of responsibility, this government wants to make sure that they will obfuscate, that they will remove themselves, that they will remove any transparency and that they will remove themselves from the equation, ensuring that, for any funding that's given to grants that would be deemed to be unacceptable or not in the national interest, the minister has no oversight and has no capability to actually stop the ARC board from putting forward these grants and that the minister will have no powers to revoke the grants. Now, you might think that, under the previous coalition government, the minister was, willy-nilly, revoking funding from grants. In fact, it happened very, very rarely. It was very uncommon for grants to have their funding revoked. In fact, since 2005, in nearly 19 years, only 32 grants have been revoked, so we're not talking about hundreds—or thousands—of grants being given out for research projects; we're talking about 32 that were revoked. I know some of my colleagues have mentioned some of them, and I may take the liberty of reiterating some of them. In monetary terms we're talking about 0.53 per cent. Less than one per cent of all grants given had their money revoked, so this puts to bed any outrageous slur that may have been inferred about the coalition somehow interfering with who got and who didn't get support. In monetary terms, we're talking about less than one per cent—in fact, it was 0.53 per cent—of money that was revoked. What we want to make sure of, though, is that, by removing this ministerial discretion on research—and we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars here of taxpayer funds—and outsourcing these decisions to the board, this government is really trying to remove its accountability for its decisions to this place, the parliament, and then, ultimately, to all Australians, under the democratic system of responsible government. Ultimately, this is bad policy and we will be opposing it. Fundamentally, this is the Albanese government removing itself and putting a board in charge of a very large slice of money. This outsources their responsibility, but it also puts in place a system where anything goes, so there'll be an opportunity for projects to get funding without any oversight, without any responsibility for the funding lying at the doorstep of this government or that of the minister. You might be interested to know, as, perhaps, would anyone who's listening or anyone who's watching and playing along at home or anyone who's here in the gallery, that some of the projects were deemed not to be in the national interest. You will remember that, at the core of this, our research funding is for projects that are in the national interest, that align with our national interest and with our national security, projects that ensure that our economy, our community and our society continue to move forward and have more opportunities available to them. Among the projects that were revoked was 'Gender liminality and globalisation: transgender and transnationalism in contemporary Polynesia'. I'm not sure that has much to do with Australian society and our national interest. I heard Senator Brockman refer to 'Spectacles, dress and second-wave feminism in the Philippines'. Some other ones were 'Perverse corporealities: self-transformation and the sexual body in contemporary queer and gender theory', 'Classical love in modern times', 'Transformation in the kisaeng profession in colonial Korea' and 'Beauty and ugliness as persuasive tools in changing China's gender norms'. I'm pretty sure President Xi wouldn't be too into that one. I'm not quite sure President Xi and China will be in there with regards to looking at beauty and ugliness as persuasive tools in changing China's gender norms. I'm not quite sure China is that into changing gender norms. Far be it from me, but I'm pretty sure it's still not in Australians' national interest. I'm pretty sure those in the gallery aren't desperately searching for their wallet to chuck us down a fiver to add to that one. Then there's, 'A history of Australian men's dress, 1870-1970', which was originally titled 'Shirt-fronted: a history of Australian men's dress, 1870-1970'. Now this one may have been revoked. As long as we don't go back to the long collars and fat ties, I think there might actually be some value there. I don't know. Maybe some of the men will get a few tips. Stick with a nice Tom Ford tuxedo or whatever it might be. Again, not really sure it's going to be pushing the national debate forward. What about 'Soviet cinema in Hollywood before the blacklist, 1917-1950'? Seriously. I know that communist Australia, it is not dead. We know that communist Australia still has its supporters—some of whom I think sit closer in this chamber. Or, thankfully not that close. I'm not quite sure these are programs that invest in the national interest or advance our national economic, social, environmental and cultural interests. Certainly no tangible benefits. Again, I'll come back to the fat ties and the bell bottoms and the long collars. I think we can avoid those. I think that just goes without saying. Really it's not up to the taxpayer to decide these things. Yet, here we are with the minister saying, 'Don't ask me. I'm not going to have any oversight of the taxpayer funds that literally sit in my bailiwick.' Who knows who's going to be appointed to this board? Goodness me. What's the criteria there? We can ask those questions. Not sure we'd ever get to the bottom of those. We can't even get any information on NDIS funding, which is pretty important to 600,000 Australians, so I can't see why they'd bother to give us any information about who they're going to appoint to these boards. That said, when I think about who they appointed to other boards, particularly around the National Reconstruction Fund and some of the other big issues they've put some pots of money towards. They've actually all been payments for their union mates. Quite a few of their union mates have been put straight on those boards. We have a very special friend of Senator Ayres who's managed to get on two boards since this government came to power. He's got two boards including the National Reconstruction Fund—even though they had 'a great board' according to Minister Husic. It was a great board, ready to go, open for business, but oops, 'We just realised we didn't appoint one of our union mates and we can fit him on the board.' Couple of hundred thousand dollars a year payment. Nice job if you can get it. Why would we trust who they're going to put on their board? We know it's just going to be their union mates who go on the board, make some crazy research decisions. How can we expand union membership across every single industry? I think they know what they'll be trying to do with that one. There'll be no responsibility on the minister because the minister's approach is, 'Don't talk to me. I have no oversight. I'm washing my hands of all responsibility.' Yet again, no accountability, no transparency—all those good government promises that Albanese made. Prime Minister Albanese said, 'My word is my bond.' We know how effective that was. It was a complete load of rubbish. Every Australian can see he's completely full of rubbish, and this is Minister Clare trying to remove himself and absolve himself from any accountability or responsibility. Let them appoint more of their board mates to research council positions, so they can probably use it to do dirty deals with the Greens to let them fund some of these crazy research projects. What was one of the good ones there, Senator O'Sullivan? I can't find the list, but there were some crackers. 'The beauty and ugliness and persuasive tools in changing China's gender norms'. I'm pretty sure the Greens would be right in on that one. 'Gender liminality and globalisation, transgender and transnationalism in contemporary Polynesia'— (Time expired) 13:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank senators for their contribution to the debate—some more than others, I would say, Acting Deputy President! The reforms in the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 will set up the ARC for the future. It modernises the ARC governance and bolsters its independence. Importantly, it will get political interference out of grant funding decisions and give researchers and universities confidence that their projects will be judged on their merits through the peer review process. These reforms come out of the recommendations of the independent review led by Professor Margaret Sheil AO, and I add my thanks to Professors Sheil, Dodds and Hutchinson for their work. It has led to a report and now a bill that all those committed to the advancement of Australia's research sector can be proud of. I thank the Senate committee for their inquiry recommending passage of the bill and Senators Pocock, Faruqi and Thorpe for their engagement. Of course, the opposition have taken a different view. It's clear that they want to preserve the ARC as a political plaything for future Liberal ministers. The opposition on this bill is deeply concerning. Well, the days of a minister spiking a research project because they didn't like it will end with this bill—a bill that sets up the ARC to spur Australian innovation in the future and catalyse productivity in the years ahead. Once again, I thank senators for their contribution. I commend the bill to the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)

34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 43 13:50 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I've got a number of questions for Senator Chisholm. Obviously there are many amendments before the Senate, but I would like to ask those questions now of the Minister representing the Minister for Education, who has made some disparaging comments about the opposition and the opposition's position on this bill. If the government wants to take the so-called politics out of research funding decisions, why is the government retaining ministerial discretion on programs like the Australian Research Council Centres of Excellence and the Industrial Transformation Research Hubs schemes, which, in the 2022-23 year involved some $250 million or so in funding. Surely, Minister, it is gross hypocrisy from this government to suggest that you are taking the politics out of the ARC, when a huge lump of funding is being retained by the minister. In this current year, how much funding is being allocated to research funding programs over which the minister will retain his discretion? What percentage does this represent of total funding provided by the ARC? 13:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Henderson, for that question. I'll take that on notice, and we'll try to get back to you ASAP, whilst we are still in committee on the bill. The minister will no longer be involved in approving individual project grants as part of the National Competitive Grants Program, except when approval enlivens national security concerns. The minister of the day will, however, be involved in designated research programs which help build research capability—that is to say, not individual research projects but whole programs which will help drive Australia's research in the future. This includes programs like the ARC Centres of Excellence, the Industrial Transformation Training Centres, and Industrial Transformation Research Hubs schemes, which have already proven to be significant engines in driving research capabilities. We are confident that that is a better way forward. We can take the interference out of the ARC projects but ensure that we can still have a good outcome where the minister is involved. 13:53 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Minister, regrettably you didn't address my question. I was seeking information on how much funding is allocated to the research funding programs that the minister will retain ministerial discretion over and what that is as a percentage of total ARC funding? I again ask you, Senator, to explain the basis on which the government is retaining ministerial discretion over some quarter of a million dollars relating to programs like the ARC Centres of Excellence scheme and the Industrial Transformation Research Hubs scheme, for instance. This, I would put to you, is completely inconsistent with the government's position that it is taking the so-called 'politics' out of research funding decisions. If you were doing so—even though we absolutely disagree with that position—the minister would have no discretion. But the fact of the matter, based on the 2022-23 numbers, is that the minister is retaining discretion over at least 25 per cent of total funding, which is some $250 million. So could you please explain that gross inconsistency and also provide the Senate with those numbers that I'm seeking in relation to the amount of moneys over which the minister will retain discretion. 13:55 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Senator Henderson, you might have missed it. I said that we'd try and provide that information on the percentage as soon as we can, so we are endeavouring to do that. As I said, the minister will retain authority to approve grants for these three schemes in recognition of the role that they play in creating research capability for Australia. That's why we believe it's important. It will provide flexibility for the government to invest in specific research priorities, strengthen the integrity of the system by drawing on the expertise and recommendations of the College of Experts, and provide opportunities for the minister to collaborate with relevant ministers on key government priorities. That's why we believe it's important to retain that for those three projects. 13:56 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I think you've just highlighted the gross hypocrisy of what the government is putting in terms of its position. The government is trying to prosecute an argument that it is handing over funding decision-making ability to an independent board, and yet you are now standing on your feet justifying why the minister will retain ministerial discretion over hundreds of millions of dollars. As we have made clear in our contributions in this debate, it is improper for the government to absolve itself of ministerial discretion in relation to all of the moneys provided to the ARC, and I have to raise concerns that I raised in my second reading contribution about the government's cut to research funding in the last MYEFO statement. As you well know, the Albanese government, when it was in opposition, made a commitment before the 2022 election to increase funding for research, in fact, to three per cent of GDP. So could you please update the Senate on what's happened to that commitment, and how much additional funding this government has provided to the ARC and to research more generally. Frankly, Assistant Minister, when I look at the government's record on research, it is appalling. In the last MYEFO statement, some $102 million was cut from research programs, which shows a very poor commitment, frankly, to Australian research. So I would ask the assistant minister to explain the government's position in that respect and also update the Senate on the now government's election commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP. 13:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I would reject the characterisation by Senator Henderson in regard to the ministerial approval of designated research programs. It is nuanced. I'd accept that, but not the claims from Senator Henderson. The minister of the day will no longer be involved in approving individual project grants as part of the National Competitive Grants Program, except where an approval enlivens national security concerns. The minister of the day, however, will be involved in approving designated research programs, which will help build research capacity—this is to say: not individual research projects but whole programs, which will help drive Australian research and capability into the future. That is the important difference there. In regard to university research funding, the government has a proven track record of supporting the research sector, and this bill is the latest proof of that. Following the release of the Australian Universities Accord interim report on 19 July 2023, the government acted immediately on the five priority actions it recommended. The government redirected uncommitted funding from the Regional Research Collaboration Program, as well as a small portion of funds from the Australia's Economic Accelerator program. These priority actions include the establishment of up to 20 additional regional university study hubs in regional Australia and extending demand driven funding to all First Nations students where they meet the eligibility requirements. This is a good use of taxpayers' money, helping more Indigenous children to go to university and creating opportunity for many people studying in regional areas. That's what the experts tell us we need to do, and that's what our Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 did at the end of last year, but I'm not surprised that the coalition want to oppose all of this and remain negative about that aspect. 14:00 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Assistant Minister, thank you for partially answering my question, but I am deeply concerned that, in trying to explain why the government has cut this funding, this has been characterised as a small cut. This is not a small cut. This government and the Minister for Education, Mr Clare, have shown contempt for the research sector by cutting more than $102 million in the 2023-24 MYEFO in December. They slashed $46.2 million from the Australia's Economic Accelerator program and clawed back a further $56.3 million by cancelling the Regional Research Collaboration Program—two very significant research programs delivered by the former coalition government. So, when you characterise these shocking cuts as small amounts of funding, I think the facts speak for themselves, Minister. I would again ask you to explain why $102 million of funding was cut from research. I would also ask you to address the other part of my question, which you conveniently did not address, and that is: what has happened to Labor's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP? Is this another broken promise? All we have seen from this government in nearly two years is broken promises, wrong priorities and bad decisions. So I say to you, Assistant Minister, that you owe it to the Australian people to explain this massive cut to research funding and to explain what has happened to Labor's election commitment. Given you are cutting research funding, not adding any money to research funding, this is on track to being another big, fat broken promise by this government. I look forward to you providing the further information, Assistant Minister. 14:03 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We're not going to be lectured to about research by the representative of the previous government. I would stack our record on research up against the previous government's any day of the week. There's no better example of that than what we're doing in terms of the ARC report that is being adopted in this bill, which is being opposed by those opposite. I think the research community out there are absolutely sick of the political interference that they saw from the previous government. So we do have a different path that we are pursuing when it comes to research. I'm sure it will be welcomed by the research community, because we understand how important it is and for their international reputation as well. We make no apologies for redirecting that funding as part of the Universities Accord interim report into things that will make a significant difference for people. You shouldn't put words in my mouth, Senator Henderson. I didn't say 'small'. I do acknowledge that there was a redirection of funding, because we believe it is important to give First Nations people in the greater metropolitan areas greater access to opportunity when it comes to university study. I've seen myself firsthand the difference that regional university study hubs are making in the community, having visited a number of them. I'm really proud about that. I think that they were something that was started by our predecessors that we're encouraged by and think they will make a significant difference, which is why we've invested more money in it. We think that they are significant and that they will make a difference, and that's why that money was redirected. 14:04 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I agree with you that the Regional University Centres, an initiative of the former coalition government that I'm very proud of, are making a real difference in regional Australia. However, I remind you that a significant number of those centres have now been put into the outer suburbs, which is most regrettable because it is regional and remote students who most need access to university. Students living in the outer suburbs can get on a train or a tram or a bus and go to university. You can't do that in the regions. So it's most regrettable that the government has decided to redirect that very important initiative. The government is expanding the program but redirecting it to suburban centres when so many regional, rural and remote students are crying out for the same opportunities to go to university. I'm going to ask you this for the third time, Minister. In your earlier answer, you referred to this as a 'small' cut. It's not small. It's $102 million. So it's very, very disappointing that the government has made that decision. I ask you to again address the very specific question that I asked in relation to the government's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP, as the Labor Party promised before the last election. What has happened to that election commitment, Assistant Minister? 14:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As I said, we absolutely stand by the decision to redirect the $102 million because we believe it will make a significant difference for First Nations people in greater metropolitan areas. In regard to the Regional University Study Hubs, I think Senator Henderson should be aware that that is an expansion of the Regional University Study Hubs and the establishment of outer suburban hubs. So it is an addition. It's not either/or, which I think is important. I think it will be welcomed by many people who live in those areas who don't have easy access to study at a tertiary institution. It's something that I think will be an important legacy of this government. 14:07 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I am going to ask you again: what has happened to the government's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP? You're continuing to refuse to answer that question. Could you please answer that question. 14:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We believe that a vibrant and diverse research component is an important part of a vibrant and diverse economy. Growing Australia's investment in R&D as a proportion of GDP is an important part of making that happen. Right now, we languish behind comparable nations, with overall investment in R&D as a proportion of GDP well below the OECD average. This didn't happen overnight. Those opposite were in power for 21 of the last 27 years. The last time investment in R&D peaked at 2.25 per cent of GDP was when Labor was last in government. On the Liberals' watch, R&D investment over the last decade plunged to 1.68 per cent. For the last 10 years, those opposite let R&D spending contract across the economy. They undermined our scientists and universities and dared Australia's manufacturers to leave the country. Turning this around is going to take more than one budget cycle. But it's not just about governments. It requires a cultural shift from all of us as businesses, universities and governments. It requires moving from thinking about investment in R&D as a nice thing to have when times are good to thinking of it as being essential for an innovative, resilient country. The Albanese government knows this and is laying the groundwork for Australia to get back off the mat. This includes things like $15 billion for the National Reconstruction Fund, $392 million for the Industry Growth Program, $9 billion in direct support for national research organisations like the CSIRO and $3.2 billion through the R&D tax incentive. It's why the Minister for Education has been undertaking the Universities Accord as well. You can see from the objectives of the government that we value research. This important bill that we're discussing today is an example of that. 14:09 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I take from your answer, Assistant Minister, that you're not willing to give a direct answer in relation to my question about Labor's commitment to increase research funding to three per cent of GDP. I remind you that the coalition, when last in government, invested very heavily in university research and research more broadly through the university research commercialisation package, which was a $2.2 billion investment and a very important investment not just for universities, not just for the research sector, but for our nation. It is most regrettable that while the government did adopt that package, it's started to cut into that package by cutting $46.2 million from Australia's Economic Accelerator program. We know, we understood, and we continue to prosecute the case that research funding is no good if it sits in the bottom drawer. Research papers are no good if they don't get commercialised, if they don't lead to better outcomes for our country, particularly when we are talking about taxpayers' money here, Minister. This is of critical importance. I can tell you one of the very substantial programs that universities are continuing to celebrate is the $243 million Trailblazer Universities Program, which is boosting research and development in a number of universities after a competitive tender and driving commercialisation outcomes and also driving enormous matching investments and more from industry. This has been a monumentally successful program. We have seen nothing like this from this government. In fact, the government was so mean to the research sector that in this bill alone it cuts some $1.5 million from the Australian Research Council. It is taking that money, which would otherwise be used for research, to establish the board and for the other administrative purposes of the bill. So I think it's fair to say that, while I accept that that research stakeholders want all of the decision-making ability in their own hands, despite the merits of research projects, the research sector has been scathing about the government's decision to cut $1.5 million from the Australian Research Council to fund the mechanisms in your bill. The government could not even find that money, let alone the $102 million that it's cut from research. I want to move to the board arrangements. Could you please tell the Senate what the role of the CEO will be? Will the CEO report to the board? 14:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Henderson. Just to clarify on that $1.5 million, that is departmental administrative funding. It's actually got nothing to do with the ARC's research role. In regard to the role of the CEO, the CEO's functions include the administration of the financial arrangements of the ARC, evaluating the excellence, quality and impact of research in Australian universities, and grants administration. The CEO will perform its functions in accordance with any directions given by the board and will remain responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the ARC. 14:13 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria How will the board select its board members? Can you describe the recruitment process, please? 14:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Henderson. The chair and its members will be appointed by the minister as significant appointments under the processes set out in the Cabinet Handbook. Board members will only be eligible if the minister is satisfied that the person has substantial experience or expertise in one or more fields of research or in the management of research. The board will reflect the diversity of the general community in accordance with general government policy and will include and Indigenous person and a regional, rural and remote representative. In addition to the requirements for board members, the chair will also be expected to hold professional credibility and significant standing in one or more fields of research or in the management of research. 14:15 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I might finish my questions for the moment, but I may have further questions during the committee process. 14:15 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2465: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 16), after paragraph 3(b), insert: (ba) support Australian universities to attract and retain academic researchers and promote quality academic jobs; and This amendment would make it an object of the ARC to support Australian universities to attract and retain academic researchers and promote quality academic jobs. There is a real and urgent need to address job insecurity, casualisation and the precarious nature of work, which is rife across universities and also across the research sector. Only one in four researchers is employed on a continuing basis and 80 per cent of researchers have been on fixed-term contracts of less than three years in length. As one of the largest funders of research, the ARC must play a role in addressing job insecurity, and this amendment gives the ARC an explicit opportunity and responsibility to do that, because a quality job is a secure job. I do want to thank the National Tertiary Education Union for their work pushing for this change and other reforms to address job insecurity throughout the university sector, and I think Minister Clare and his office for their engagement on this amendment as well. 14:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Faruqi, for that contribution and, it would be fair to say, a pretty consistent approach to these issues over a number of years now. The government will be supporting this amendment. The independent review and the government response make clear that the ARC has a role to play in supporting Australian universities to attract and retain talented academics. We want to see our research community flourish, and part of that is improving the attractiveness of academic research roles.itchn The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU There being no other contributions, the question before the chair is that the Greens amendment on sheet 2465 be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Askew 281558 We can cancel that division and have our opposition recorded. I seek leave to withdraw that. Leave granted. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That division has been cancelled. Question agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Does the opposition wish to have its opposition recorded? 14:18 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria by leave—Yes, we do. 14:18 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2469: (1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of Division 2, add: 11A Review of the Board (1) In the financial year beginning on 1 July 2026, the Minister must cause to be conducted an independent review of the following: (a) whether the functions of the Board are appropriate; (b) whether the size and membership of the Board are appropriate. (2) The persons undertaking the review must give the Minister a written report of the review. This amendment requires an independent review of the appropriateness of the ARC board's functions, size and membership to be conducted in the financial year starting 1 July 2026. This bill makes important and significant changes to the operation of the ARC, the key one being removing the minister's veto and the establishment of an ARC board to approve research funding, to pursue a range of new objectives and to be representative and diverse. Given the nature of these changes—and we have had discussions with the government—a review after two years of the implementation of the bill does seem appropriate. This amendment provides an important oversight and review of the board to ensure that it is functioning as intended and to identify ways that it can be improved. We envisage the review would cover whether the board functions, functions independently without ministerial interference and achieves its objectives, including to support universities to attract and retain academic researchers and to promote quality academic jobs, amongst others. Given the history of political interference in the ARC by the coalition, this amendment ensures that this is an independent review which provides a report to the minister, and I do urge the minister to release the report publicly to ensure transparency. Again, I do want to thank Minister Clare and his office for working with us on this. 14:20 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will support this amendment. It was a suggestion of the Senate committee that the government is happy to support, and I thank Senator Faruqi and Senator Thorpe for their engagement on this. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 2469 be agreed to. Question agreed to. 14:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move the Greens amendment on sheet 2441: (1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraph 12(4)(d), substitute: (d) ensure that the membership of the Board reflects the diversity of the general community, to the extent that is reasonably practicable. This amendment requires the minister to ensure that the membership of the ARC board reflects the diversity of the general community. Currently, the bill merely provides that, in appointing board members, the minister must have regard to the desirability of the membership of the board being diverse. The minister should not be considering whether diversity is desirable. The fact is that diversity is a must, and the minister must be required to ensure a diverse board. This amendment makes this the case. I note, in passing, that this complements another Greens amendment on sheet 2440, which increases the board size from five-to-seven members to seven-to-nine members to allow the board to be more diverse. I will not be moving this amendment on sheet 2440 as it has the same effect as an amendment from Senator Pocock on sheet 2413, which the Greens will support. I have long pushed for academic governance bodies to be democratic and diverse and also in the context of this bill, and I made that point very strongly in the inquiry report to this bill. Thanks again to the government for engaging with us on this matter. 14:22 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Faruqi. The government will be supporting this amendment. The bill contains strong provisions to ensure an expert board which reflects the diversity of our communities and our research sector. This amendment will help further emphasise the importance of diversity in board selections, which is important. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 2441 be agreed to. Question agreed to. 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2395 together: (1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 20 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of designated research program. (2) Schedule 3, item 3, page 21 (lines 7 to 11), to be opposed. These amendments remove the minister's power to specify designated research programs in regulations under which funding for individual research projects is decided solely by the minister and not by the ARC board. While these regulations would be disallowable, significant concerns have been raised by universities, university peak bodies and researchers that this risks the minister taking sole decision-making power over a very wide range of funding decisions on individual grants. We have worked too hard to get politics out of research funding. Really we should not be providing the minister another opportunity to interfere again if they wish to do so in the future. Research funding should be decided through a rigorous peer review process and research expertise, not by the government of the day. The minister should not be able to write themselves back into power with some funding decisions over individual research grants—at least not without greater oversight. My amendment would have the effect that an act of parliament would be required for the minister to take the significant step of obtaining sole decision-making power over research funding. 14:25 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Faruqi. The government will not support the amendment. It is important that the minister retain the ability to approve research programs which create research capability, rather than programs that award individual research grants. There are appropriate protections against misuse. The minister's specification of a project as a designated research project will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as part of the normal disallowance processes. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU We will split the two amendments on sheet 2395. The question is that Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2395 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [14:30]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)

13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

14:34 The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU There were two amendments moved together by leave. We'll now deal with the second of those amendments, which is Australian Greens amendment (2) on sheet 2395. The question is that item 3 of schedule 3 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [14:34]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)

28 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

14:36 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I move the amendment on sheet 2451, standing in my name: (1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 15), at the end of subsection 12(4), add: ; and (e) ensure that the membership of the Board reflects a diversity of discipline areas to the extent that is reasonably practicable. This amendment is very simple. It gives full effect to recommendation 6 of the review, which states that the board must comprise members with: … a combination of skills, experience, and perspectives relevant to the functions of the ARC across the spectrum of ARC disciplines, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership, research administration and evaluation, and university industry partners. Numerous submissions and stakeholders called for measures to ensure the board is comprised of individuals from a range of academic disciplines. While I endorse the existing provisions requiring a First Nations member and geographical diversity, the diversity of the general community remains open to interpretation and does not guarantee that the range of academic disciplines are represented on the board. 14:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will not be supporting this amendment. The processes for appointment of the board are drawn from the independent review and contain protections around diversity. The government has agreed to an amendment from the Greens which further enhanced this protection. 14:37 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens, as I said earlier, have long pushed for representative and diverse governance structures in universities and research, so we will be supporting Senator Thorpe's amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment (1) on sheet 2451 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [14:42]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)

16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

14:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2439 together: (1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (after line 15), at the end of subsection 12(4), add: Note: The appointment process in section 12A also needs to be complied with. (2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (after line 15), after section 12, insert: 12A Appointment process (1) This section applies to the following appointments: (a) the appointment of a person to be a Board member under section 12; (b) the appointment of a person to act as a Board member under section 14 if: (i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or (ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more. (2) An appointment must not be made unless: (a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes: (i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and (ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members; and (iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and (b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates. (3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or (b) if a House is not sitting—presented or tabled at the earliest opportunity in accordance with the practices of that House. (3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 10 (before line 25), before the note, insert: Note 1: For the appointment of an acting Board member, the appointment process in section 12A also needs to be complied with. (4) Schedule 2, item 10, page 10 (line 25), omit "Note", substitute "Note 2". The review and a number of submissions called for this act to include provisions for appointments to the board that minimise the possibility of appointments on the basis of political favour. Ministerial appointments open the ARC board up to more 'jobs for mates' being appointed by government. While we appreciate that the establishment of the ARC board is a significant step to improving the independence of ARC decisions, a number of experts and submissions proposed strengthening these provisions. An ideal model involves a democratic process where board members are elected by the academic community in a process which is totally independent of government, such as the model used in New Zealand. These amendments, which involve an independent panel reviewing applications and shortlisting applicants to be chosen by the minister, maintain ministerial oversight while creating a significant improvement towards integrity and independence. 14:46 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will not support these amendments. The processes for appointment of the board are drawn from the independent review and are dealt with as part of the legislation. 14:46 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens will support these amendments, because we support a selection process for the ARC board members that is transparent and that reduces the risk of political appointments. Question negatived. 14:47 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move amendment (1) on sheet 2437: (1) Schedule 3, item 6, page 25 (after line 19), after paragraph 49(2)(e), insert: (ea) require each researcher involved in the research project concerned to declare any conflicts of interest, potential conflicts of interest, or perceived conflicts of interest, to the Australian Research Council; and This amendment will require each researcher involved in a research project to declare actual or potential conflicts of interest to the ARC, with this requirement attached directly to the funding agreement between each organisation and the ARC as a term of the funding agreement. This was proposed in the concussion in sport inquiry to improve research integrity in a field where industry backed researchers have undertaken dodgy research that has impacted people's livelihoods. These provisions complement existing ARC arrangements and declarations of conflict of interest. They will help to ensure that no more public money goes towards dodgy industry backed research. 14:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thank you, Senator Thorpe. The government will support this amendment; it's a sensible addition to the primary bill and reflects good corporate governance. We're happy to support it, and I thank Senator Thorpe for her engagement on this matter. 14:48 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales This amendment makes the case that ARC funding agreements require researchers involved to declare any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest to the ARC. I do note that the ARC's current policy on conflicts of interest and existing grant application processes already appear to require researchers to declare conflicts of interest. However, I think this amendment does provide clarity and the Greens will not stand in the way of it. Question agreed to. 14:50 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I move the Australian Greens amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 2394 together: (1) Schedule 3, item 6, page 23 (line 1), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence". (2) Schedule 3, item 6, page 23 (lines 3 and 4), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence". (3) Schedule 3, item 6, page 24 (line 17), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence". (4) Schedule 3, item 6, page 24 (lines 20 and 21), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence". (5) Schedule 3, item 6, page 29 (lines 27 and 28), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence". (6) Schedule 3, item 6, page 29 (lines 31 and 32), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence". (7) Schedule 3, item 6, page 32 (lines 23 and 24), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence". (8) Schedule 3, item 6, page 32 (line 26), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence". (9) Schedule 3, item 6, page 33 (line 26), omit ", defence or international relations", substitute "or defence". While this bill is a really big step forward in terms of removing the minister's veto power, I think there are some areas in this bill which still leave that power within the minister's jurisdiction. This amendment removes the minister's power to not approve, or to terminate, ARC research funding for reasons relevant to international relations of Australia. The ARC review recommended retaining a ministerial veto only for reasons of national security, but this bill broadens those reasons by adding international relations as a reason for a veto as well. Researchers, including the Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences and five Australian academies, have raised concerns that this risks being interpreted broadly and could lead to unintended consequences. The breadth of the international relations veto power is concerning because, in determining whether to veto research funding for international relations reasons, the bill explicitly notes that the minister may regard any matter they consider appropriate. This is a pretty wide discretion that does present a real risk. A huge amount of international collaboration occurs across the research sector. An explicit object of the ARC as proposed by this bill is to support collaborative research with international partners, so clearly there is a risk that the international relations veto could be relevant to many research projects and does present a risk of interference that this bill is trying to remove more broadly. My amendment would remove this risk. 14:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Faruqi. The government will not support this amendment. The provisions around national security are drawn from existing legislation which deals with the same subject matter. It is important that the accepted statutory formulation of national security be maintained in this bill. The bill has strong protections at section 55 to ensure that this power is exercised for a proper purpose. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU The question is that Australian Greens amendments 1 to 9 on sheet 2394 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [14:57]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Progress reported.

STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 53 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Infrastructure 53 15:00 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland It is less than 50 days, just 48 days, to the next stunning beef week in Rockhampton. We are really looking forward to this week, because months after beef week we were meant to start work on the Beef Roads Program. Just under two years ago the coalition committed $400 million to seal 450 kilometres of roads through Central Queensland. These are shocking roads that we make our beef producers traverse on a daily basis. Some of these roads, like the Springsure Tambo road, are like a beach. I've seen pictures of kids standing in them up to their knees in sand. Those are the roads that our truck drivers and beef producers have to drive over on a daily basis, taking their own lives in their hands and, of course, costing their businesses thousands of dollars. That was going to be fixed, because we were going to put $400 million to sealing these roads. Obviously they are also used by locals in these remote areas. They're used by coal miners who go to and from work as well. So these roads were going to be safer for many thousands of Queenslanders But unfortunately the Labor government has stripped away funding for the beef roads just before beef week. In the dark of night we only found out in Senate estimates a few weeks ago that although the program was meant to start next year, no announcement was made by the Government. We only found out by the spreadsheets that get delivered to us in Senate estimates that in fact the $50 million that was due to be spent in 2025-26 is gone. It is no longer. The $50 million 2026-27 is gone. In fact $100 million is stripped out of the forward estimates from this program. The government will say, 'It's still there—most of the funding now is in the 2030s.' How can you believe any promise that is now more than five years away? The people of Central Queensland produce so much for this country, including the lovely steaks we all like to enjoy. Our farmers deserve to have safe roads to drive on. The Government should reverse the decision and get these roads going to start beef week this year. Schools 53 15:02 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Over the past few weeks I have had the honour of visiting a number of schools in South Australia that have benefited from an investment by the Labor government in the Capital Grants Program. I recently attended Playford College in Elizabeth for the opening of the new Imam Ali building. This school has a wonderful story to tell. It started as a vacant piece of government property and is now a thriving community for Muslim students from diverse backgrounds. Its inception was a vision of that community, and what has been built is a community hub where students work alongside the community, in these facilities that the government has been able to contribute to, to build their opportunities for the future. It's a great learning environment, and the dedication and commitment of the teachers, students and the broader community is a joy to behold. I also recently visited Tyndale Christian school at Strathalbyn for the opening of their new resource centre and hospitality area. I was lucky enough to receive a lesson from some of the hospitality students on how to use an induction stove top, which is part of their new installation in that area. It was so clear that in that school it's not just the bricks and mortar, it's not just the facilities and the opportunities that they bring, but it's the community that is building the confidence of those students, investing their trust in those students and building a community hub where the students feel deeply valued and can engage in building their opportunities for the future. It was an absolute delight to be out there. It's a reminder of what we need in our schools, that holistic dedication to commitment. The government is delighted to partner with the schools in achieving that end for their students. Political Parties 53 15:04 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia It's another day and another Liberal preselection where the bloke has toppled the woman. Another day where the Liberals, instead of backing an experienced, well respected woman, have backed in a mediocre ultraconservative bloke. Of course, as South Australian women know, the Liberal party has been on this path for quite some time. Clearly, the Liberal Party has a women's problem or, should I say, the Liberal Party has a problem with women. Time and time again, the Liberal Party misses the mark when it comes to preselecting and backing in strong capable women and has done it again. Of course, it is not just in South Australia; it's around the rest of the country. It seems that the Liberal Party is now controlled by an ultraconservative rump that relegates women to the bottom of the ladder. Mr Dutton, the leader of this great faction, is leading a party of the 1950s, where women are seen but not heard and certainly not preselected, where women are not given the opportunity to represent their constituents or the opportunity to show that modern Australia needs women at the helm. You get better decisions, you get more inclusiveness, you get less blokes fighting blokes and you get women actually getting the job done. This Saturday, in South Australia, in the Dunston by-election, back a party that backs women, because we certainly know the Liberal Party isn't doing that. Tasmania State Election 54 15:06 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania As Tasmania approaches its state election this weekend, it is clear there is a huge risk to my home state and to the prosperity and success of Tasmanian families and businesses. That risk is the prospect of another Labor-Greens state government. It was under a Labor-Greens government from 2010 to 2014 that Tasmania saw hundreds of nurses and police officers being sacked, schools being earmarked for closure, services being slashed and industries being deliberately decimated—destroying jobs and sending thousands of Tasmanians interstate to find work. That's not just my view and it's not just the Liberal Party's view; even the Labor Party in subsequent years has admitted the huge mistake it made in allowing the Greens into the cabinet room between 2010 and 2014. Indeed, Labor made a big show of promising they would never do it again. Yet here we are just a few years later and we have to Tasmanian Labor Party making it their entire election strategy to sneak back into government with the help of their friends in the Greens. They promised they would never do it again and they are preparing to break that promise, not for the good of Tasmania, not for the good of jobs or industries but purely to get themselves into power. In doing so, they are prepared to do a deal with the Greens despite knowing that that deal will destroy the economy, wreck the state budget and undermine key industries like aquaculture and forestry, just like it did in the dark days of minority Labor government between 2010 and 2014. To my fellow Tasmanians, I say here today: don't risk another Labor-Greens government this Saturday. Do not put the future of our state at risk just so that Labor can govern with the Greens. Health Care: Women 54 15:08 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia When you look across our healthcare system you don't have to dig very deep at all to see example after example of where women have been discriminated against, where women have felt unheard, where women have experienced bias and where women ultimately have been let down. We see this across a spectrum of women's health issues when it comes to maternal health care, when it comes to menopause, when it comes to issues like endometriosis. We see women's pain at best being ignored and at worst not being believed, and that can have terrible and devastating consequences for the women involved and for their health care. We have known this for a long time and it was confirmed last week when the end gender bias in the healthcare system survey was released, which showed that 70 per cent of women experience bias in the diagnosis and treatment of their condition, 70 per cent of women felt like they had experienced bias at the GP and 70 per cent of experts felt women were only slightly or not at all believed about particular health issues. When women are not believed, when their pain is dismissed, when they are not heard by healthcare professionals in the system that is there to treat them, it has devastating consequences for these women. It has devastating consequences for how their healthcare needs are addressed. That's why the Senate Community Affairs Committee is currently inquiring into menopause. We need to change the conversation that happens at a practitioner level when it comes to women's health, and we need to change the investment and support that is there to care for, and hear, women so that their needs aren't ignored. We as a government have so much work underway. This survey should be read by everyone in this chamber because women's voices deserve to be heard. Labor Party 54 15:10 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland On the weekend, former ACTU president and former Labor member of parliament Jennie George AO published an article in the Australian newspaper. It's compulsory reading. Jennie clearly holds Labor's light on the hill in her heart, and her words echo the sadness and grief of many Labor true believers. She said: 'The party that was formed to give political expression to the needs of working people has allowed the light on the hill to dim.' In a recent speech I remarked that in 2024 Labor's famed light on the hill is now nothing more than the sun reflecting off solar panels, which we know are expensive, short-lived and an environmental disaster—just like the Albanese Labor government. Jennie George's judgement of the modern ALP is savage. She says: 'Labor today is not the party it was; it has lost its moral compass.' Ouch! Labor Party members like Jennie have not left the party; the party left them. The Overton window is a metaphor for the acceptable range of ideas and policies in which many politicians think they can act. Through it, such politicians see the middle ground of Australian politics. Under successive Labor-Greens and Liberals-Nationals governments, the Overton window has moved so far to the left and to the autocratic—that it no longer provides for everyday Australians. We're losing wealth, spending power, access to housing, democracy and enjoyment of the riches our country has to offer. Establishment parties continue to take from working Australians to line the pockets of their millionaire and billionaire mates at the World Economic Forum. One Nation is the only party that still stands for working Australians and for all who have come here to lift themselves up through their own hard work and enterprise. Our One Nation policies will make the lives of working Australians easier. Jennie George's words embolden old Labor to take back their party and excise from its ranks those who wear the mark of the World Economic Forum. Restore the ascendancy of our parliament, and return power to the people we are supposed to serve. Western Australia: Gun Control 55 15:12 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Western Australians have a good political radar. They know a bit of political nonsense when they hear it, and we've seen that well and truly on display once again from the state Labor government in WA over the last few weeks. In this case it came out of the mouth of police minister Paul Papalia. Minister Papalia had a bit of a problem. That problem was that the Labor government's promises in policing just hadn't been fulfilled. In fact they were nowhere near being fulfilled. They promised an increase of 950 officers by the middle of this year. Where are they tracking now? The number of police officers in WA as of March—very recently—has actually dropped since December of last year. What has police minister Paul Papalia come out with? Overblown rhetoric on his favourite area, targeting law-abiding gunowners in WA. He said this: 'There is only one question around these new gun laws. It is an American-style "unlimited guns for everyone" or responsible, reasonable limits on firearms possession or use.' What a load of nonsense! Western Australia's gun laws have been amongst the toughest in this country all my life. To compare Western Australia with the situation in the US is not only ridiculous but abandons every single one of those law-abiding Western Australia gun owners. White, Senator Linda 55 15:14 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise today to speak on the passing of my good friend Senator Linda White. I note that the formal condolence motion will be dealt with tomorrow, but I will be unable to contribute to that debate, so I want to take this time to offer a very brief reflection on the life and work of an incredible woman—a member of the Senate who has departed far too soon. I do remember my first interactions with Senator White at a Labor Party conference some 10 years ago when she and Terri Butler and I were engaged in negotiating the final wording of the affirmative action policy, which has so significantly ensured great participation by women in our party. She was a thought leader, and she was never afraid of the work. Linda and I worked most closely on the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care, and it was throughout the course of that inquiry that I first had the opportunity to truly bear witness to Linda's deep commitment to ensuring and furthering the rights of Australian workers. In her 10 years at the ASU, Linda was a formidable champion for the union movement. Beyond her obvious competency, I also came to know a woman of unmatched integrity, compassion and good humour. Many of the recommendations that Linda most strongly advocated for back in late 2022 when the select committee inquiry was undertaken—such as 26 weeks of paid parental leave and the right to disconnect—have since been legislated. It's a testament to Linda's forward-thinking nature and her status as a deeply respected parliamentarian in this place. I'm deeply honoured to be taking over Linda's role as chair of the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation and will endeavour to emulate the collaborative, careful work for which she was so well regarded in this committee. I close with words from Linda herself: Getting justice for people has dominated my working life. How that happened and why it happened goes to a series of experiences, decisions and opportunities, some within my control and some not, which have determined the life I have led to date. I'm glad the opportunities led her to this place and to our association. Women's Sanitary Products 55 15:18 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland One in five Australians have been unable to afford period products at some point in their life. Period poverty shouldn't exist in wealthy country like ours. But where it does, not-for-profit organisation Share the Dignity is making a real on-the-ground difference to the lives of women, girls and those who menstruate, particularly those who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness and domestic violence. Since Share the Dignity was founded in 2015, they've collected and distributed over four million period products to those who've needed them. Share the Dignity's Bloody Big Survey is Australia's largest survey on attitudes and experiences of periods. Data collection has just started for the second version of this survey, and it's open until 31 May with the results available from 1 August. Share the Dignity are hoping to capture the attitudes and experiences of 20,000 Australians in this year's Bloody Big Survey, so I encourage everyone listening to do the survey and to share it with your friends so they can too. Since 2020, every state and territory government has started a trial or introduced a policy to provide access to period products in public schools. This is good progress, but it's time that period products were provided for free in all schools and public facilities, including hospitals—not on a trial basis but permanently. Providing free pads and tampons to every Australian public primary and high school is an easy and effective way to reduce period stigma, to improve students' health and wellbeing and to minimise school absences. It's time to end the shame and stigma around menstruation. Period products are a necessity, not a luxury, and it's about bloody time we made them accessible to everyone, regardless of their income. Liberal Party of Australia 56 15:18 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I rise to congratulate my colleague Senator Alex Antic on securing the very highest spot on the South Australian Liberal Party ticket. Good job, Senator Antic! While the Liberal Party seems all but dead in my home state of Victoria, there may still be some life—some, but not much—left in the party of Menzies. Senator Antic is a rare conviction politician, and he fights for what is right. He has the courage to speak the truth and defend Australian values. There are people in the Liberal Party right now who have criticised the decision by the members. Those people are LINOs: Liberals in name only. They recognise neither the democratic process of their own party nor the desperate need to elect true Liberals. I won't hold my breath—obviously not—but I hope that Senator Antic's preselection is a sign that the Liberals are returning to the conservative values of Menzies. The UAP will never, under my leadership, move away from having an Australia-first attitude and from having a steadfast commitment to reducing the size of government and bureaucracy, to reducing legislative burden, to protecting the family, to pushing back against globalist interests, to eliminating the scourge of Marxism in our institutions and to upholding the Judaeo-Christian values that our nation was founded on. Can the Liberal Party be reformed? Only God knows; quite frankly, many of their members should just quit—quit! I'm looking at you guys!—and join the Labor Party or, potentially, the Greens. But I do welcome the news that the Liberal members have voted for a true Liberal. Bravo, Senator Antic; we need more base people like you in this chamber. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! Mervin, Ms Kunmanara, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands 56 15:20 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia As a Liberal, I pay tribute to the incredible life and contribution of South Australian Pitjantjatjara woman, Kunmanara Mervin. 'Kunmanara' is a respectful reference to people of the Great Sandy Desert who have passed away. Like so many women of the bush her contribution is extraordinary, with immense intergenerational benefit for every single Australian. Kunmanara is the epitome of those who we must fight for in here, the quiet achievers whose voices need amplification—the most formidable and resilient yet, at the same time, the most vulnerable. Born around 1945, Kunmanara's homeland was Watarru, about 2,000 kilometres north-west of Adelaide. She was an esteemed ecologist, with knowledge revered by those with a long list of academic achievements and parchments. She knew about the impact of working with Western scientists. Hers was a life spent on threatened species—the itjar itjari, the marsupial mole; the nganamara, the malleefowl; and the tjakara, the great desert skink—the nocturnal, burrowing or evasive animals which don't stand out but which are critical to Australia's ecosystem. They're the ones that get forgotten amongst the pylons that transmit electricity. She was a master in the traditional fire management that prevents wildfires which threaten people, plants and animals and in passing on culture. She was a sought-after ngankari, or traditional healer. Kunmanara's artworks tell Tjurkurpa, or Dreaming, without Western influence. Her family collaborations are hung in Paris, Sydney and in the South Australian parliament. This woman, like so many Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara and Nganatjarara women, was a standout inspirational, awesome, credible and authentic woman, like so many women with a similar story. This weekend, the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands celebrate the land rights act coming into effect in 1981. I note the APY celebration has been delayed many times, but I wish the community well for this coming weekend. Tasmania: Maritime Industry 57 15:22 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania It grinds my gears when we have opportunities to bring money into northern Tasmania when instead we're watching it sail away to the mainland or internationally. Southern Marine ShipLift operates at Kings Wharf in Invermay. It's a massive dock where companies from across Australia send their ships to be serviced. Everything happens there, from a fresh lick of paint to full ship repairs. Ships can be at Kings Wharf anywhere from two weeks to 10 weeks while the work is being done. And ships usually send their crews along to help with the repairs. So for those two weeks or 10 weeks, companies are paying for their crews to sleep in accommodation in Launnie and eat at our cafes and restaurants. Lucky them! The current ship lift can only accommodate one ship at a time, so if there's a ship booked in for 10 weeks and another ship has an emergency, well, that's too bad for the ship with the emergency. Southern Marine ShipLift is turning work away because of their limited capacity. This means that instead of companies sending their ships and crews to Tasmania, they're sending them off to the mainland. Even worse, some are heading off to international waters. That's money lining the pockets of people in Singapore when it could be flowing through Tassie. Imagine if that money were going through George Town or through Launnie. It would be more money for Southern Marine ShipLift to employ apprentices and to help with our skills shortage gap. It would mean the struggling coffee shop on the corner could stay open, knowing they'll have steady business year-round. And accommodation providers would be certain of bookings during the winter. Southern Marine ShipLift has a plan to make this happen. They want a new site with equipment which could service two or three ships at once. To kick all this off they need funding for a feasibility study. It's a very, very small amount of money that could lead to a massive investment in northern Tasmania. And I think that's what I'm asking for—a little bit of an investment! Juvenile Detention 57 15:24 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Once again, we're seeing politicians across the country spread fear and hate, and calling for more kids to be locked up. The federal coalition and some state Labor governments are undermining progress on raising the age. These politicians tell the public that jailing children will keep communities safe, knowing this is a lie. The evidence shows that jailing kids traumatises and damages them and that they often become more of a risk to the community throughout their lives. Last week, a new report in Queensland showed that over 90 per cent of young people who'd been in detention committed another offence within 12 months of their release. The figures are similar in other states. To keep one child in youth detention can cost over a million dollars a year. Governments are wasting billions each Once again, we're swseeingyear harming kids and making communities less safe in the long run. There are plenty of successful First Peoples led diversion programs around the country that are keeping kids connected with culture and community and avoiding contact with police and prisons. We could do so much better if the sort of money governments spend on locking kids up were instead invested in diversion programs and support services that actually work. With several state elections coming up, we will see more fearmongering and more races to the bottom, but remember: these politicians don't care about kids. They don't care about communities. They only care about the votes that they think they can win by creating more fear. It's up to all of us to call that out every time. Kids belong in families and communities, not in prisons. Supermarket Prices Select Committee 57 15:26 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales We all know that, over the last 15 to 20 years, the supermarket industry has changed. It appears quite clear that this change is not for the better. A driving tour through the electorate of Calare in the Central West of New South Wales would once upon a time have taken you past hundreds of farm gates ready to supply local markets, local fruit shops and the supermarkets. Now that same drive will show a much smaller number of producers, each forced to scale to sustain downward pressure on prices applied by the likes of Coles and Woolworths. Evidently, the pendulum has swung too far away from the farm gate and onto the shelves. It appears that, no matter how much the cost pressures apply to consumers or growers, the supermarkets never lose. Over the past few weeks with my committee, we've been going back and hearing from fruit and vegetable growers about the challenges they face from the lack of labour, the increased cost of production, intensive regulation and a Labor government that continues to roll out antifarming processes, and that's all without considering the effect of prices to the consumer. We've heard about farmers and the sneaky tricks used by the supermarkets, including tactics that see a large percentage of products deemed not fit for duty get lowball offers after they've been delivered, only to see this product end up on the shelves at the same prices as those that they have approved. The Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices provides an opportunity to examine all of these markets closely. That is why I will be continuing to traverse the country and hear these true stories at the farm gate. We've already heard that farming families are walking away despite decades on the land. In Victoria, families who have grown citrus fruit for more than 100 years are tearing up their farms, worn out by the politics and expectations of Coles and Woolworths. We've heard people all over Australia quivering with fear about giving evidence and the consequences. They were already pushed down, and this needs to stop. Legal Aid 58 15:28 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I recently met with representatives from Community Legal Western Australia, the peak body for community legal services in my home state of Western Australia. In a world where access to justice is not always guaranteed, these centres serve as beacons of hope, offering a lifeline to those who might otherwise be left voiceless and vulnerable. Community legal centres assisted 179,000 people across the country with managing everyday legal problems in 2022-2023. They empower individuals and communities to stand up for their rights and challenge injustice. Through education and outreach programs, they arm people with knowledge and resources they need to navigate the legal system with confidence and dignity. In doing so, they not only address the immediate legal needs of their clients but also work to address the systemic injustices that perpetuate poverty, inequality and marginalisation. By providing free legal help to people in need, they contribute to the great work of reform within our legal system. A great example of this work is the achievement of justice for victims of robodebt, introduced by the former coalition government. As a senator for Western Australia, I wholeheartedly support and endorse the work of community legal centres. Whether through volunteerism, donations or advocacy, we all have a role to play in ensuring that everyone has equal access to justice under the law. I thank them and commend them for the incredible work they've been doing in WA and across the nation. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for senators' statements has expired. MINISTRY 58 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 58 15:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I inform the Senate that Senator Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. We should congratulate her on her beautiful wedding on Saturday. In the absence of Senator Wong, I will be the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, and ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President, party leaders and independent senators. PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS 58 PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS Australian Labor Party 58 15:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia by leave—I advise that Senator Grogan has been appointed Deputy Government Whip in the Senate—congratulations, Senator Grogan—in addition to Senator Ciccone, replacing Senator Pratt. SHADOW MINISTRY 58 SHADOW MINISTRY Presentation 58 15:31 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator Paterson has been appointed shadow cabinet secretary, in addition to his existing portfolio responsibilities as shadow minister for home affairs. Senator Hollie Hughes has taken on the roles of shadow assistant minister for mental health and suicide prevention and shadow assistant minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I welcome Senator Bragg and Senator Scarr to the shadow ministry and congratulate them on their appointments. Senator Bragg will become shadow assistant minister for home ownership, and Senator Scarr will become shadow assistant minister for multicultural engagement. I seek leave to table the revised shadow ministry list and to have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS 60 PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS Liberal Party of Australia 60 15:31 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I also take the opportunity to advise the Senate that Senator Kovacic has been appointed as Opposition Deputy Whip, replacing Senator Scarr. I congratulate her on that appointment. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 60 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Fiscal Policy 60 15:32 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. How much extra spending has the Albanese government committed to in the past week? 15:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank the senator for the question. All of those details will be released in the budget—in the normal way, as people would expect. The spending that we have supported, including paying super on PPL, along with our other cost-of-living measures, are about supporting the community, easing cost-of-living pressures where we can and continuing to repair the budget. I would remind those opposite that we were the first government in 15 years to deliver a surplus—not to print the mugs that said you were back in black but to actually deliver the surplus. We have removed waste from the budget. We have sought savings and delivered those savings. We have found room for important priorities like super on paid parental leave, because parents take time out of the workforce. It is an investment, not a welfare measure, as some opposite have called it. We believe these investments are important. We believe they're investments not only for achieving gender equality; they're also good for the economy. All of the spending that we agree to is measured against our fiscal priorities and our fiscal plan, and we will continue to do that. We're in the thick of the budget session now. We are going through all of those decisions. We're fixing up terminating measures and hidden black holes that we inherited from you when you were in government because you didn't budget with a true picture of the state of the budget. We'll continue to do all that work. We'll continue to repair the budget, to lower the debt burden we inherited and to make room for important spending priorities that alleviate the cost-of-living pressures on Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Kovacic, a first supplementary? 15:34 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Is it true that the Albanese Labor government made $6.75 billion in new spending commitments in just one week? 15:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, I take the supplementary question. There's one thing I don't do and that is accept the numbers that those opposite spout. I have seen them. I have seen how you've added up in your big spending. Some of the things that you have costed, that you accuse us of, are important increases in the pension, for example, and estimates variations where because of inflation we see increases in payments. You count that and say that it's wasteful spending. We have invested in Indigenous housing—tick, yes—because we believe we need to fill the gap that was created after a decade of inaction, to make sure that we are providing housing options for people in the Northern Territory. Yes. Are we backing the critical minerals industry? Yes, tick, we are backing them. Are we investing in the future generations of this country through super on PPL? Yes, we are—and all will be released in the budget. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Kovacic, second supplementary? 15:35 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales How does the Albanese Labor government's latest spender bender, which comes on top of $209 billion of new spending since being elected, line up with the Treasurer's promises that the next budget will demonstrate, 'We will be more responsible and demonstrate more restraint', and, 'There will not be any big cash splashes in the budget, simple as that'? 15:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank her for the supplementary question. What I take from that is that you do not support estimates variations to pensions and payments. If you use that figure, that is what you are saying. If you don't support Indigenous housing—that's what I hear from that: that you don't support super on PPL and that you're not backing in the critical minerals industry. Is that what you're saying? That is the implication from the question that you ask. Now, I know it kills you that we delivered the surplus. I know it kills you that we are more fiscally responsible and that we are managing the economy better. I know all of that really irritates you, but the reality is we are sticking to the fiscal plan that we outlined when we got elected. We are making responsible decisions. We're investing where we can, we're making savings where we can and we're reducing our debt burden. That is what any responsible government would do. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 61 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Kiribati: Parliamentary Delegation 61 15:37 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the parliament of Kiribati. It's the Public Account Committee, led by the chair, the Hon. Taunei Marea. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 61 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Women's Economic Security 61 15:37 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women. Taking time out of paid work to care of children is a normal part of working life for parents. We know that it is women who overwhelmingly pay a motherhood penalty as a consequence of this time out of the workforce. This penalty means that women earn less over their working life and, as a result, retire with less superannuation. How will the Albanese government's plan to pay super on government paid parental leave make a difference to women and their economic security? 15:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question, and, again, everyone on this side of the chamber, including Senator Walsh, for their advocacy around paying super on PPL. It's part of Labor Party policy, and we are so pleased we have got the budget into a shape now where we can afford this important investment. We know that one-third of the gender pay gap can be attributed to time spent caring for family and interruptions in full-time employment. Women with children face an average 55 per cent drop in earnings in their first five years of parenthood, while fathers' incomes don't change at all. Last week we announced Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality, and, as part of that and our commitment to driving gender equality in this country, we made the announcement that parents accessing Commonwealth paid parental leave will get an equivalent 12 per cent superannuation guarantee payment on top of their paid parental leave payment from 1 July 2025. We don't see this payment as a welfare measure, as some of those opposite have painted it; we see it as a workplace entitlement. We know the gender super gap that exists is between 22 to 32 per cent. It has been an anomaly that the government paid parental leave hasn't included super on it, so it means women—and it is predominately women who are using that payment, although that may change with some of the changes that we've put in place and that were passed by the Senate this morning—paying another financial penalty for taking time out. The announcement was for two things: (1) because it was the right thing to do to fix that anomaly, and (2) we wanted to send a strong message that we value the caring role that parents play, and we wanted that to be reflected in the decision that we took on super on PPL. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 15:40 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Under the Albanese Labor government the gender pay gap is now at 12 per cent, the lowest level in Australia's history. I understand the government is taking further measures to ensure that Australian women can achieve economic security throughout their lives. How else is the Albanese government taking action to improve women's economic equality and support cost-of-living relief for women? 15:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you very much for the question, Senator Walsh. This has been a clear priority for the government since being elected. Going back to my earlier answer to the first question asked today, it's the reason we've been getting the budget in better shape. We've been repairing it, removing waste and driving savings so that we can provide room for these important decisions that drive gender equality—so super on PPL. Obviously we've seen a number of other measures where we have increased investment. It might be on single parenting payments—again, 90 per cent of single parents are women—our investments in child care and early education and care, and our investment in wages for highly feminised industries, like aged care. It's all part of our focus on driving a better outcome for women or working for women in this country. It will remain a priority for this government as we continue to work through that national strategy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 15:41 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Minister, you've made it clear during your time as Minister for Women that listening to the views of women is an essential part of the policy process, including in developing the Albanese government's gender equality strategy Working for women. Why is it important to listen to women? And what difference does it make having women at decision-making tables? 15:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (): Thank you very much, Senator Walsh. I'm very proud, along with all my colleagues here and in the other place, to be a member of the first federal government that has a majority of members who are women. That of course hasn't happened by accident, and we know that there are still some political parties that struggle with the role they want women to play in their political party. We've made a very clear decision to increase the number of women, and it has paid off. We have talented women that make up 50 per cent of the Labor government. It does matter and it does change decision-making. And it means that issues like driving gender equality are a real priority. We have consulted and we have listened to women right around the country when finalising our strategy. We had round tables, we had surveys, we took feedback from thousands of women and women's organisations to make sure that we got this strategy right. I look forward to implementing it. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 63 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Political Exchange Council: Philippines 63 15:43 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'd like to draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 15th delegation from the Philippines, led by the Hon. Jennie Rosalie Mendez. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 63 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Middle East 63 15:43 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Farrell. In January this year UNWRA sacked multiple staff members for alleged involvement in the horrific 7 October terrorist attacks, and funding for UNWRA was paused on the basis that alleged involvement by its staff in those attacks must be investigated. I note that these investigations continue and have not yet concluded. Will the government release the advice it received which underpinned its decision to reinstate funding to UNWRA ahead of the conclusion of investigations? Can the minister outline what verifiable undertakings have been secured to guarantee Australia taxpayer dollars are reaching those in genuine need and are in no way accessed by extremists or by terrorists? 15:44 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank the senator for her question. I also welcome the Filipinos here today. Como esta? Honourable senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N That's the extent of my Filipino, after 40 years of marriage. I'm sorry about that! We want to ensure that all aid that we provide as a government to any organisation in any country gets to the people it's intended to get to. We are strongly of the belief that that is the case with these contributions. As you rightly say, we did suspend the forwarding of aid to UNRWA when issues were raised, particularly about the people who were working in that organisation. Australia has contributed, I think it's a total of $52.5 million in humanitarian assistance in Gaza since the terrible crisis— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler on a point of order? Senator Chandler 264449 The point of order on relevance. I asked about whether the government would release the advice it relied upon to reinstate funding to UNRWA, and I asked the minister to outline what undertakings had been taken before the funding was rereleased. I don't think the minister has gone anywhere near those questions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Chandler. There was an awful lot in your question and I have been listening very carefully to the minister. The minister is being relevant to your question. Senator FARRELL I0N The allegations against UNRWA were obviously serious. They were grave. They warranted immediate and appropriate response. And as you may have seen, Senator, a number of countries, including Australia, have now taken the decision to resume humanitarian contributions in Gaza. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, first supplementary question? 15:47 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Speaking of other countries, did the minister or other government representatives consult with the United States prior to announcing the resumption of funding to UNRWA? 15:47 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Well, Senator, we make our own decisions about who we make humanitarian grants to. We obviously have a very close relationship with the United States, but we also have close relations with Canada, New Zealand and a range of other countries, including the European Union. All of those other countries— Senator FARRELL I0N Well, I haven't given up on the EU Free Trade Agreement, Senator Birmingham, yet. We haven't given up on that. Senator FARRELL I0N Senator McKenzie, we make our own decisions about who we give humanitarian aid to. As I mentioned before— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, second supplementary. 15:48 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Why is the Albanese Labor government acting in opposition to the United States, our most trusted international partner, who await the outcomes of the investigation into UNRWA and in the interim is pursuing alternative means of delivering more humanitarian assistance? 15:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I take issue with your first statement. I'm not sure that the United States is our most trusted ally. I would have said New Zealand, in the whole history of time—I would have said our closest international ally is New Zealand. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. I'm going to wait for order before calling the minister again. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N We are very close to the United States—I freely concede that—and we'll continue to work closely with the United States on a range of international issues. (Time expired) Middle East 64 15:50 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is of the minister representing Minister Wong. Under intense pressure from the community and the Greens, the Labor government has been forced to reverse its disgraceful suspension of UNRWA funding. It is clear that funding was suspended by Minister Wong without any evidence and that this compounded starvation and suffering for Palestinians. Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and others have said that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. At least 23 children in northern Gaza have died from malnutrition and dehydration— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Faruqi, I'm sorry; please resume your seat. Senator Faruqi has the absolute right to ask her question in silence—from both sides of the chamber. Senator FARUQI 250362 Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and others have said that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. At least 23 children in northern Gaza have died from malnutrition and dehydration in recent weeks, adding to the over 13,000 already killed by Israel. In a world where Palestinians' lives mattered to the Labor Party, it would be an absolute political scandal for a sitting minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Faruqi, your time has expired. Minister Farrell. Senator Faruqi 250362 They were shouting. Will you admit— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, resume your seat. Your question was extremely long and, regardless of interjections, I doubt you would have got to the end of it. You are not in a debate with me. I've asked you to resume your seat and not continue with such disorderly conduct as to keep reading the question. I've called the minister. 15:52 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Faruqi for her question. Of course the Labor Party doesn't want to see anybody starving, and that's the case in respect of Gaza. That is why Australia has committed $52.5 million in humanitarian aid, and it is why Australia has resumed its contribution towards UNRWA and will continue to provide humanitarian assistance where it's needed in Gaza. The circumstances in Gaza are terrible; we all know that—the loss of life. We are making— Senator McKim JKM Why did you stop the funding? Senator FARRELL I0N Do you want to hear the answer? We stopped because there was good reason to make the decision to review the contribution, based on evidence that had been provided. Senator McKim JKM There was no evidence. Senator FARRELL I0N With respect, Senator McKim, there was evidence that resulted in this government making the sensible decision to review. But we have resumed the contribution, so I do find it very difficult to understand the point that you're making, Senator Faruqi, when we have restarted the contribution and, as I said, when that contribution totals $52.5 million in humanitarian aid to Gaza. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 15:54 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The ICJ ordered Israel to take immediate steps to allow aid in, and the UN has repeatedly asked the world to act and for Israel to allow aid into all parts of Gaza. Minister Wong has said that she is imploring Israel to allow more aid. Beyond mere weak words, Minister, what actions has the Labor government taken to force the Israeli government to stop blocking aid? And will you admit your gross mistake in suspending UNWRA funding and apologise for it at least? 15:54 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia No, Senator Faruqi, I won't apologise. We took the appropriate action in the circumstances to review our humanitarian contribution to UNRWA, based on the evidence that had been provided. We have now resumed those payments and we have done that, as I've said before, with a range of other countries, including New Zealand, Canada and the European Union. We have made the right decisions all the way along the line here, Senator Faruqi. You may not like it, but all of those decisions have been made by the government and have been the correct decisions. And we will continue to make the correct decisions, and that includes seeking discussions with the Israeli government on— (Time expired) 15:55 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Israel is intent on a ground invasion of Rafah. After forcibly displacing Palestinians in Gaza to Rafah, having murdered over 31,000 Palestinians, Israel is now starving children to death and their genocide is leading to mass hunger and famine. Yet the Labor government continues to support Israel's genocide in Gaza. Minister, when will the Labor government stop supporting and arming Israel? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Faruqi. Minister Farrell, I reminder you to address your answers to the Chair. 15:56 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you. And I thank Senator Faruqi for her second supplementary question. It is as if the terrorists from Hamas in October last year didn't exist, based on your question, Senator Faruqi. What you have to understand is that almost 1,300 innocent men, women and children on the southern border of Israel were massacred in a terrorist assault by Hamas. The government took the decision that the Israeli government had— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, when I call order, it applies to you. Interjections between you and Senator Rice across the chamber are incredibly disorderly. I am asking all senators not to interject. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you. As I said, it is as if those events did not occur. The Australian government took the correct decision that the— (Time expired) Economy: Northern Territory 65 15:57 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia President, this is not my first speech. My question is to Senator Farrell, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. With reference to the cabinet's visit to the Northern Territory last week and the government's announcement of a significant package of economic development and cost-of-living measures, can the minister update the Senate on the impact of these announcements last week by the government—including housing, education and critical minerals—and how they will benefit all Territorians? 15:58 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ghosh for his question and wish him a long and successful career in this place. Last week the entire Albanese cabinet made a trip to the Northern Territory, with ministers getting on the ground to hear firsthand from communities, industries and our Territory colleagues. During the trip our government delivered billions of dollars in investment for projects right across the Northern Territory in areas such as education, health and resources. Minister Clare announced, for example, that our government will deliver at least an additional $737.7 million for public schools in the Northern Territory, which, when combined with a further $330 million from the Territory government, will change lives for kids across the Northern Territory. Minister Burney joined with the Prime Minister to announce a landmark $4 billion investment for remote housing in the Northern Territory to help close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and make a major difference to the lives of people living in remote communities. With the 50th anniversary of Cyclone Tracy approaching in December, our government will also invest $600,000 to install monuments to memorialise those whose lives were changed forever during that disaster. I was especially pleased to join my Territory colleague Minister Joel Bowden to launch Choose Tourism, a new campaign to attract more workers to the tourism industry and show off the Northern Territory to the world. These investments will deliver serious economic development in the Territory and ensure that they are well placed to thrive into the future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary? 16:00 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia I thank the minister for his answer and for highlighting the major investments the government is making in the Territory. Can the minister also update the Senate on our government's investments in critical minerals and rare earth projects in the Northern Territory and how they will not only support economic development but also increase trade with our key partners? 16:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia (—) (): I thank Senator Ghosh for his first supplementary question. The Albanese government is committed to supporting our critical minerals sector, which will help Australia become a renewable energy superpower. That's why we announced $840 million in loans and other financial support for Arafura Resources to build the first integrated rare earth mine and processing facility near Alice Springs. This project involves mining, processing and exporting rare earths to our longstanding trading partners like the Republic of Korea, Germany and the United States for renewable technologies like electric vehicles and wind turbines. Investments in projects like this mean more jobs, including value-adding jobs for Australian workers in Alice Springs on these projects. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary? 16:01 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Can the minister outline to the Senate why these investments are essential in helping Australia's transition to becoming a renewable energy superpower? 16:02 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ghosh for his second supplementary question. Our government wants Australia to seize the economic opportunities of the transition to a renewable, cleaner economy. The critical minerals which will come from this project are essential for the technologies that will power our net zero future, from batteries to electric cars and wind turbines. That is why we have supported the Arafura Rare Earths project—to kickstart this industry and put us in pole position to reap the benefits of a transition to renewable energy. The race is on to secure global investment for projects to provide trusted, reliable supply of these minerals through diversified supply chains. Our government is committed to help the sector attract this investment so that we can become a renewable energy superpower. Energy 66 16:03 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. The government has ruled out adding nuclear electricity to our energy mix based on the government's calculations showing a higher cost of nuclear energy as against wind and solar. Minister, can you please inform the Senate of the levelised cost of generation of wind, solar and nuclear that informed the government's position? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will just remind you that questions need to go to ministers, not assistant ministers, so I'm directing the question to Minister Gallagher. 16:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you for the question. The advice the government has—and I think this is understood by everyone who's been following the energy discussion—is that nuclear energy is very slow to build. It's the most expensive form of new electricity generation. It cannot beat renewables, which are the cheapest, fastest and cleanest form of new electricity generation. The analysis that was done showed that there was a significant cost burden. Our position is about cost. We are looking for the cheapest form of energy generation, which is renewables, which includes wind and solar. Australia obviously has a very significant comparative advantage when it comes to that form of energy, with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country. We also don't have a workforce to support that nuclear energy generation. So the time involved means it would be decades before anything became operational and it would do nothing to reduce the energy costs for Australian households and businesses in the meantime. So our position—and I think there is a lot of support for that position—is that this transition to renewable energy is the quickest and cheapest path as we shift away from fossil fuel generation. That is the path that the government was clear about before the election. That is the path that we are implementing under Minister Bowen's and Minister McAllister's leadership, leading for the government, and we will continue on that path. We will leave the nuclear energy debate for those opposite to convince people of. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 16:05 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, is the figure for nuclear based on real-world data from the 440 nuclear power stations around the world or even from the last 10 stations completed in the last few years? If not, on what is it based? 16:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As I understand it—and I will see if there's anything I can provide—the government analysis that looked at the cost of nuclear energy was looking at how to replace the retiring coal-fired power station fleet. That figure resulted in about a $25,000 cost impost on each Australia taxpayer, based off 15.1 million taxpayers. So, according to many of the experts in the energy field, it's more expensive, going to take decades to build and, in the meantime, will do nothing to reduce the power costs of households, which are clearly going to benefit from the shift to renewable energy generation and technology. That is the path the government will continue on because we are focused on cost of living and a sensible and orderly transition away from fossil fuels to new forms of energy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 16:07 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The government is using a figure for the cost of modular nuclear power that's not based on any real-world data. Rather, it is mere speculation about a type of generation that doesn't exist. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator McKim! Senator Roberts has the right to ask his question in silence, and I will ask senators to respect that right. Senator ROBERTS 266524 The government's data is based on speculation about a type of generation that does not exist and completely misrepresents the cost of nuclear power. The government is spreading misinformation again. Minister, why didn't the government use the real-world data from 57 conventional nuclear power stations currently under construction around the world, and why is the government not being honest about nuclear? (Time expired) 16:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't accept the question that Senator Roberts has put to me. We are providing information to the community, and that information is that renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build generation technology. That is clearly a fact. We have also done some analysis, and I think you will find it hard to find any expert that says nuclear isn't expensive or isn't going to take too long to build, including how you generate a workforce around this and the time it will take to do that based on the work that we need to happen now. We can't delay this for decades. The transition was already delayed for a decade under those opposite, with 22 failed energy policies. In 18 months we have been getting on with it. We are in that transition. We will focus on renewables as the lowest-cost form of energy generation that will help households with those cost-of-living pressures. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, I'm calling you and the chamber to order. May I invite you to make your contribution at some other time and not in question time. Migration 67 16:09 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales This is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Minister, how many of the more than 2,000 visas granted to Palestinian document holders following 7 October have since been cancelled, and how many of those cancelled have now been reinstated? 16:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you for the question, Senator Sharma. I think it might be your first question in this chamber. The issue that you've asked about is something that I addressed in some media comments this morning as well. The government's practices as to the cancellation of these visas have been on the record. As we have made clear repeatedly, this government is following exactly the same process as the former government in the granting of visas and the consideration of visa applications and has applied exactly the same security tests to those applications as has occurred previously, including under the former government. Decisions were made to award visas to some applicants, not all, and those decisions were based on information that was available at the time those decisions were made. Further information, in some cases, came to light, and, on the basis of that information, the security advice was that some visas should be cancelled, and that action was taken. Then, as time progressed, additional information came to light which required the reinstitution, if you like, of some of those visas that had been cancelled. That is ordinary practice for any government of any political persuasion—to make visa decisions based on information that is available and that is based on security advice from security agencies. And of course— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Watt. Senator Paterson? Senator Paterson 144138 I have a point of order on direct relevance. Senator Sharma's question was very direct, very factual. It just asked for a series of numbers. The minister has not yet provided them in one minute and 30 seconds. If he doesn't have them, he should take them on notice and provide them afterwards. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Paterson. I will remind the minister of the question. Senator WATT 245759 As I was saying, the way that the government has approached this issue is exactly the same as it was approached under the former government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson? Senator Paterson 144138 On direct relevance. The minister is now openly defying your ruling to return to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 To be fair, Senator Paterson, the minister had just got to his feet, but he is aware that I have redirected him to the question. Senator WATT 245759 What I was attempting to say was that of course the way the government is approaching this is to ensure that the Australian community's safety is foremost in the decision-making process. The opposition has asked about numbers, and what I can say is that, when Mr Dutton was the Minister for Home Affairs, he granted more than 500 visas each week to Syrians fleeing the country in 2015. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson, I suspect you are jumping on a point of order. Unfortunately, the time has expired. Senator Sharma, first supplementary? 16:12 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Multiple media outlets last week reported that a number of individuals leaving Gaza had their Australian visas cancelled while en route to Australia. Last night the ABC reported that some of these decisions are now being reversed, with additional security and other checks conducted by the Department of Home Affairs now complete. Minister, what additional checks did the Department of Home Affairs conduct that led to the cancellation and subsequent reinstatement of these visas? 16:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Sharma, I would expect that, as an experienced member of parliament and a former diplomat, you would know that governments do not provide that level of detail about security advice that they receive. Simply being a member of the opposition doesn't automatically entitle you to ask those sorts of questions or get that sort of information. You would surely know that governments don't provide that kind of security information. What I can also say is that the Department of Home Affairs routinely cancels visas. That department has done so under this government. They did so under the former government. They have done so from time immemorial. That's because all noncitizens who wish to enter or remain in Australia must satisfy the requirements of the Migration Act, and all noncitizens are required to meet health, character and security criteria. They're required to undergo security checks and are subject to ongoing security assessments. That is the practice under this government, as it was under the former government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Sharma, second supplementary? 16:14 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales On 28 February, when asked by the opposition to confirm whether adequate security checks were conducted on all of the individuals from Gaza who were granted visas, Minister, you assured us they were and went on to chastise the opposition for attempting to 'whip up fear'. Minister, is it still your evidence that all necessary security checks were conducted on all of the individuals from Gaza before they were granted visas? 16:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Sharma, I have to say I am quite disappointed in you, because we were led to believe that you were someone who, as a former diplomat, respected diplomatic practices in this country, respected security agencies, but now you are taking your orders from certain other people as to how this issue should be approached. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I remind you to direct your answers to the chair. Senator WATT 245759 Thank you, President. As Senator Sharma and the entire opposition well know, all visa applicants are required to undergo security checks. This government, just like the former government, has followed the advice of the security agencies in making its decisions. We have followed that advice in deciding in some cases to grant visas, in other cases to refuse applications, in other cases to cancel visas and in other cases to reinstate those visas as that advice is changed based on the information provided. Some members of the opposition might laugh about that, but this government take the security of the Australian people seriously and we will continue to do so. It would appear that others don't. (Time expired) Energy 68 16:16 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Farrell. The government's first legislative act of the year was to silence First Nations voices, breaking an election promise to strengthen the environment laws by allowing gas companies to bypass environment and consultation requirements completely. Last week's rushed half-day hearing into a bill revealed a wide range of stakeholders had no idea about the bypass provision and called for it to be removed. Outside of your gas stoners, who did the government consult with specifically regarding schedule 2 part 2 of this bill, and specifically which First Nations groups were consulted and over what period of time? 16:16 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cox for her question. As I spoke about in an earlier answer, the cabinet has been to the Northern Territory only last week. I guess, one of the developments in the Northern Territory is that there will be a supply of gas coming from the Northern Territory to assist particularly the East Coast of Australia with guaranteed and reliable gas supply. This government doesn't apologise for continuing to support the gas industry to ensure that the lights stay on so that even basket weavers like yourself, Senator Cox, can have lights at night-time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, withdraw that comment. Senator FARRELL I0N I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Did you wish to continue, Minister? Senator FARRELL I0N The long and the short of the answer, Senator Cox, is that we reject your proposition. The review— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator McKim, on a point of order? Senator McKim JKM This is an obvious point of order on relevance, President. Senator Cox didn't make a proposition; she asked some questions. The PRESIDENT 112096 What is the point of order? Senator McKim JKM We are two-thirds of the way through and Senator Farrell has not even got close to answering the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, I am yet to hear your point of order. Senator McKim JKM My point of order is relevance. The minister has not been relevant to the question in any way. The PRESIDENT 112096 There was a preamble to the question and there was a specific reference to schedule 2 at the end of Senator Cox' s question. I am more than happy to draw that to the minister's attention, but the minister has been relevant to the question. Senator FARRELL I0N A public consultation process was run between 12 January and 8 March 2024. Senator McKim JKM That was not the question. Senator FARRELL I0N This was the question, and I am answering it directly. There will be future consultations in the first half of the year. All provisions of the bill were outlined in the explanatory memorandum and outlined by Minister King in her second reading speech. The bill is currently subject to— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, first supplementary? 16:19 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia As usual, we get no answers. This is the second piece of legislation in eight months that the Albanese government has introduced to financially benefit gas corporations. In previous question times, Senator Wong admitted that the sea dumping bill was for Santos. Will you be equally forthcoming and advise the Senate that this schedule 2 part 2 is fulfilling Santos's request to the Minister for Resources? 16:20 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cox for her first supplementary question. The reality is that this government, the Albanese Labor government, is moving towards net zero. We have a policy of achieving net zero by 2050. But there is a long time between right now and getting to that point in time. One of the things that is absolutely vital is that we keep the lights on, that we keep industry going, and we keep people jobs until we can make the transition. I talked in one of my earlier answers about the fact that we are supporting the development of the extraction and processing of rare earths and critical minerals in the Northern Territory. We are doing that because the long-term future— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, second supplementary. 16:21 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Why is this government, who claim they wanted a Voice to this parliament, now actively silencing the voices of First Nations people fighting to protect their sea country from the climate- and environment-trashing gas cartel? 16:21 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I've just explained to you the consultation process that has gone on. We continue to have discussions about this. But the reality, Senator Cox—and it beggars belief that the Greens can't understand that—is that you can't turn a switch, turn gas off, and turn renewable energy on. You cannot do that. It's impossible to do it. So in the meantime— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, on a point of order? Senator Cox 296215 The point of order is on relevance. I asked why this government, who said they wanted a Voice to parliament, are now denying First Nations people who want to oppose these gas projects on their own country and in sea country, why this government is doing that actively? The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant. I will continue to listen carefully. Senator FARRELL I0N The reality is we are not going to get to net zero overnight. There needs to be a transition from where we are at the moment. We are engaging. This is the government that supported a Voice to parliament for Indigenous Australians. In my home state of South Australia this weekend, the state government— (Time expired) Cost Of Living 70 16:23 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Watt. Over the last few months, a spotlight has been shown on our supermarkets, with countless reports of complaints about pricing practices. Speaking to the ABC, Jennifer Doecke from western New South Wales said 'Our fridges are bare because we can't afford fresh fruit and veggies. Before you could fill the trolley with all the food you want, but we just can't afford to buy it now.' New South Wales farmers have said 'Farmers find themselves at a loss to explain the growing gap between farmgate and retail, and ordinary Australians are copping it.' With reference to concerns about the difference between the price farmers are paid for their produce and what Australians are being charged at the checkout, what is the Albanese government doing to address these discrepancies? 16:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Pratt, for what I think is an important question going to the point about cost of living pressures that Australians are experiencing. The Albanese government certainly understands that Australians are under the pump and, as a government, we are doing everything we can to address it. That's why we're delivering billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief on things like energy bills, medicines, cheaper child care and, of course, Labor's tax cuts from 1 July. But we also recognise that competition can play an important part in easing the pressure on households and businesses. After a wasted coalition decade, Labor is getting on with the job of making the Australian economy more competitive and fairer for producers and consumers. We've increased the penalty for anticompetitive conduct and banned unfair contract terms. Last year we reviewed the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct's dispute resolution provisions, and this year we've asked Dr Craig Emerson to review the code itself. Dr Emerson's review is looking at the relationship between farmgate and retail prices and whether or not there could be more transparency in the food supply chain. The code was originally put in place to address the imbalance of market power between the supermarkets and their suppliers, especially smaller producers and farmers, but many farmers have certainly spoken to me about how hard they find it to deal with the supermarket chains and the lack of transparency that exists in those negotiations. This review of the code marks an important step towards understanding how our supermarket sector is working to deliver fair prices for everyday Australians and for our hardworking farmers. As part of the review, I convened two round tables, one with primary producer groups and another with processor groups and unions, so that they could have the opportunity to put directly to Dr Emerson their views about how the agriculture sector should be operating. We've also initiated an ACCC inquiry into supermarket prices and commissioned consumer group CHOICE to provide quarterly price reporting. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, first supplementary? 16:26 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Minister, in evidence of which you're aware given during the public hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, we've heard stories, as you know, from farmers going out of business as a result of poor conduct by supermarkets. Given the cost-of-living pressures that are impacting families across the nation, including our farming families, what is the government doing to help relieve cost-of-living pressures for our farmers and our regional communities? 16:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Pratt, for your participation in that Senate select committee, along with a number of other senators in this chamber. I think it's revealing some very important information about what is actually going on between supermarkets and farmers, and it's been hidden for too long. We know that Australians are under cost-of-living pressure. That's why every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut from 1 July, and most people will get a bigger tax cut to help with these cost-of-living pressures. Importantly, more than 90 per cent of people working in the agriculture, fisheries or forestry sectors will receive a tax cut. Even though inflation is coming down in welcome and encouraging ways, even though we've got wages growth, which is a good thing as well, we know that people are still under the pump. That's why these tax cuts are so important, and it's why the Treasurer said that, if we can do more in the May budget, we will. We're also rolling out cheaper medicines, opposed by the coalition, and delivering more affordable housing for the bush, opposed by the coalition. We've had electricity bill rebates, opposed by the coalition, and we're doing a lot more. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, second supplementary? 16:27 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia It is clear that cost-of-living pressures are front of mind for Australian families, so why is it important that providing cost-of-living relief is prioritised across the parliament? 16:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We've said all along that what we want is a fair deal for families and a fair go for farmers. While we've had a laser-like focus on the cost of living in this government, what have the Liberal and National parties focused on? Firstly, rolling out the most expensive energy policy in the history of our country, which would put experimental nuclear reactors in cyclone-prone areas, driving power prices up. Secondly, they're too busy promoting Putin-backing extremists who say that gender is a grievance narrative to the top of their Senate tickets. And, of course, they're not coming clean on whether they'll keep Labor's tax cuts if they ever are elected. But they're not alone in being distracted or divisive; the Greens political party, whose housing spokesperson told the ABC's Insiders program that we have enough homes in this country—tell that to those living in West End in tents. Senator McKim JKM Point of order, President! Point of order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKim, there is no need to shout out. If I don't see you standing, the clerk will draw my attention to you. Senator McKim. Senator McKim JKM The point of order is that the minister is reflecting on a member of the other place, and in fact he's reflecting by lying about what he said. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, that is not a point of order, and I would ask you to withdraw the comment you made. Senator McKim JKM I do withdraw. He is misleading the chamber, and it is a point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 I did not invite you to debate the issue. I will ask you once again to simply withdraw. You need to stand and do that. Senator McKim JKM I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 The Greens are sensitive about the fact that they continue to delay Labor's important housing initiatives. They demand, and protest about needing, more housing, and then get in the— (Time expired) Immigration Detention 71 16:30 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Media outlets have reported that, at a secret media briefing held last Friday, the Minister for Home Affairs said that the High Court had 'drawn new boundaries around the powers of the executive and the parliament' and that 'there continues to be uncertainty about exactly where those boundaries will ultimately be drawn when it comes to key aspects of migration law'. Minister, has the government lost control of the immigration system? 16:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hughes for her question. No. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, first supplementary? 16:30 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Has the government received advice that more than 100 additional offenders will need to be released onto our streets in the coming months? 16:31 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hughes for her first supplementary question. As you know, historically, this area of policy has been a bipartisan approach. Both the government and the opposition have supported the policies that this government and, in particular, Minister Clare O'Neil and Minister Giles have been— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm not going to call you, Senator Hughes, until there's silence in the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm not sure how long you want to hold up Senator Hughes, Senator McKenzie. Senator Hughes. Senator Hughes 273828 The point of order is on relevance. It was a very specific and narrow question with regard to advice around 100 additional offenders being released—if you could draw the minister to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question itself is not narrow, and I believe that the minister is responding to your question. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N This area of public policy has generally been a bipartisan one. Of course, we've recently had a decision of the High Court that has made certain determinations that, as a government, we are obliged to follow. We are addressing those decisions of the High Court to ensure— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, second supplementary. 16:32 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I take that as almost a yes. What assurances can the minister provide us that the government will not release any more dangerous individuals into the Australian community due to its inaction on immigration detention? 16:33 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hughes for her second supplementary question. What I can assure you of, Senator Hughes, is that we've got two terrific ministers in this space—Minister O'Neil and Minister Giles—who are working in the national interest to ensure that ordinary Australians are protected and that we can find a way through these High Court decisions. They will continue to do that. On that note, President, I ask that any further questions be put on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 72 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People 72 16:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I have a follow-up from question time on 28 February 2024. I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked by Senator Thorpe in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians. I've written to the senator to provide additional information, and I table the letter for the information of all senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 72 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 72 16:34 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given today by ministers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators. My colleague Senator Kovacic asked a question about government spending. People listening to this question might think, 'Isn't spending a good thing? Doesn't that actually help us?' But the reality is that the spending by the government—and my colleague highlighted some $6.75 billion in one week—is on top of an extra $200 billion that has been spent by this government since they came to office. The problem with that is, when you spend that kind of money, it actually drives up inflation, and driving up inflation means that it drives up interest rates, which affects people's mortgages. This government has been very quick to try and blame overseas factors, but the reality is that our inflation is running at 4.1 per cent, which is well above the two to three per cent target, and our core inflation in Australia, which is 4.2 per cent, is well above that in the US, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Singapore, France, Italy, South Korea, Canada, Japan and, in fact, the entire European Union area. As a result of that higher inflation, the Reserve Bank has had to meet a number of times—in fact, on 19 occasions during this government. On 12 of those occasions, it has raised interest rates, and, on the others, has kept them level. That means there has been no relief and families are paying more. The consequence of this spending which has led to inflation is that, under the Albanese Labor government, Australians have experienced a collapse in their living standards, and there is nothing on the horizon that will point to a reversal. People are aware of that cost. Even today, in the ABC reporting online, they talked about a gentleman in New South Wales that saw his most recent power bill go from $600 to more than $1,400. Whilst they highlighted that there were some spending pattern factors to that, they also highlighted that, overall, the price for power has gone up by some 40 per cent, which families are actually having to deal with. That combination of real costs going up due to inflation means that real household disposable income fell by 2.2 per cent over the last year and is down 7.5 per cent since Labor took office. If there were plans ahead to make life better, people might have some hope. But answers from ministers opposite today fell back time and again on the fact that they are pushing down this transition to renewable energy because of the idea that it's going to lower prices. But, in actual fact, the latest report from Net Zero Australia, which comprises the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland, Princeton University and a couple of management consultancies, highlights that, by the end of this decade, the cost will be some $1.5 trillion with, overall, a need for about $7 trillion to $9 trillion of capital to meet the additional transmission costs that will be required if we are to reach net zero just using renewable power. The reality is that those costs are not factored into things like the GenCost report and so all the statements made about renewable energy being the cheapest form do not take account of all the costs that mums and dads and small businesses actually have to pay. In the last few weeks, as I've travelled through regional South Australia, meeting with small businesses, including people like caravan park operators, they tell me about the significant increase in costs. So, when those opposite say that the coalition is living in a fantasy around energy, what they're ignoring is the lived experience of countries overseas. We see in terms of cost and time that the United Arab Emirates has just had four reactors built within 10 years at a cost of $20 billion. That's the current price tag that is on the battery of the nation, the Snowy Hydro scheme, and the estimates from experts are that there will be four of those required to be part of the transition. What we see as real costs—actually real costs; that is, Korean contractors in the UAE delivering four reactors within a decade for $20 billion—equals the cost of one pumped hydro project here in Australia, and the estimates are that we need four of them. So the facts are that nuclear power will drive down costs—that's the lived experience—and the pathway that this government is on will push up costs for Australian businesses and families. 16:39 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Once again, we had questions about the budget and spending and money, which is pretty amazing, when those opposite oversaw a decade of waste and wasted opportunities. They doubled the debt before the pandemic and went on to rack up $1 trillion of debt, with nothing to show for it. They failed to do anything to address skills shortages and the cost-of-living crisis. They abandoned universities during the pandemic, leading to the loss of 40,000 jobs. They didn't bother investing in TAFE and training, resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of traineeships and apprenticeships. Yet they come in here and try to criticise us because we're trying to improve the lot of the Australian people. They failed to deliver genuine action on things like climate change and even engaged in outright climate change denial. They paid $19.7 billion in JobKeeper payments to companies with rising revenues. They gave away $3.4 billion for submarines that were never built. They failed to get wage growth moving and even admitted their policy settings were deliberately designed to keep wages low. I so remember the day when the former senator Mathias Cormann made that comment in which he said that it was a function of their policy to keep wages low. On this side, we've delivered a surplus—the first in 15 years—which shows that the Albanese government has and is undertaking responsible economic management. Our approach has helped lower gross debt by $87.2 billion dollars. We've delivered this surplus while, at the same time, providing billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief in those really important areas to Australians doing it tough—those areas of cheaper medicines, child care and energy bills. We remain focused on dealing with the challenges Australians are facing while, at the same time, building a stronger, more productive and more resilient economy. This includes getting wages moving. As I said, the other side wanted to keep wages low. We didn't print the coffee mugs that said 'back in black'; they did. Not only did they print the mugs; but I remember seeing them in here. People brought them in here, as though it was truth. We've removed the waste from the budget and we've delivered on really important issues like super on paid parental leave. On this side, we believe these things are important. They're not only a net investment in the economy; they make people feel as though the work they're doing is actually valued. Of course, we increased and brought in super on paid parental leave, and where we did, most of the time it affected women the most. Some of those opposite have actually called that a welfare measure. I just find that a bit rude and belittling. It's not a welfare measure; it's part of being able to improve the gap in gender equality concerns. We govern for all of Australia. Everybody knows that May is budget time. We're coming up to the budget soon, so our side are there once again, fixing up issues that the other side caused when they were in government. We're fixing up termination measures and the hidden black holes that we inherited from those opposite. We will repair the debt burden from their time in government—it was a large debt burden—and we will make the important spending priorities to alleviate the cost pressures on Australians in those important areas of child care, energy bills, super on paid parental leave and cheaper medicines. Those are the things that matter, not the decade where the opposition just wasted any approach they had. Of course, now we've got them in opposition. I know it's called 'opposition' for a reason, but that doesn't mean that they have to oppose every single thing we bring in here. We know they don't have too many policies on that side. We know it's a problem— (Time expired) 16:44 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I notice my esteemed colleague Senator Bilyk mentioned the wages record of the previous coalition government, but she failed to mention the wages record under her own government and probably for good reason. The reason for that is that real wages under this Labor government have declined at the fastest rate on record. That's why people are struggling out there. Today, real wages are back to levels we haven't seen since 2011. Under this government, under the Labor government, people's standard of living in Australia has gone back more than a decade—that's 13 years ago. Primarily that is because this government has let inflation get out of control, and they have done nothing to actively seek to rein it in. We still have some of the highest inflation rates in the world right now, and it would appear that the inflation dragon is rearing its head again in other countries. There are still many disruptions to supply chains, including the continuing situation in the Suez Canal. Oil prices are ticking up again. It is still very costly. Everyone can notice that at the petrol pump, and people's energy bills in this country have not declined by $275, like the government promised. In that context, with all of these issues, when inflation is still high and when people's real wages have been eroded back more than a decade, this government thinks the answer is to spend a week spending $6.75 billion. Over the past seven days this government has spent at a rate of almost a billion dollars a day. Where's the justification for it? The government had no defence or justification in question time for why they have been pump priming this already overheated economy and potentially making inflation worse. There are things the government could do to help with inflation. They are difficult decisions and they require some degree of fortitude, but I want to highlight two fronts the government has almost completely lost control of at the moment that are making the inflation situation that much worse. Firstly, on migration, we learned in the last couple of weeks that during the last financial year Australia brought in 518,000 people in one year— Senator Scarr 282997 In net terms. Senator CANAVAN 245212 Thank you, Senator Scarr. In net terms it was 518,000 people in one year. That's just a bit more than the size of Canberra arriving in one year. When you see, in our major cities, people living in tents and queues like you would at Dreamworld lined up in front of a standard rental house the reason is that this government has lost control of the borders. It is their job to control who comes into this country. That's the national and federal government's job. They have no plan for how to house 518,000 new people. When we were coming out of COVID there's no doubt we had to open up our borders to let some people back in and bring skilled migrants in. But this government botched our recovery from COVID by simply opening the floodgates to whoever wanted to move to this country, with absolutely zero plan to ensure that those Australians who live here have a house and can survive, with a roof over their head. So many Australians now are unnecessarily homeless because we're taking in too many people. That's adding to our inflationary environment, especially in housing and rents. The other situation is that the government has completely lost control of our energy markets. We're going to find out this week what energy price will be for the next year, the so-called 'default market offer'. Almost certainly they won't show a $275 reduction. This government promised when they came to power almost two years ago that they would lower electricity prices by $275. The Prime Minister promised that to the Australian people almost 100 times. Since then he hasn't said 'boo' about it because they haven't delivered it. They'll blame everyone for their problems. Apparently it's our fault for proposing nuclear energy—and we're just proposing it. That's not going to change the real world unless we're elected. They're responsible because they're the government, yet they can't explain why their policies are not having the effect they did. They blame the Ukraine war and Vladimir Putin, but that was more than two years ago. We have enormous natural resources in this country. We never before had to rely on Russia for energy security, but now we do under this Labor government, and that's because they won't tap our energy resources. If we want to get energy prices down we have to use our natural resources. If the government could just do two things: control our borders and use our natural resources, a lot of these inflationary problems would come off the Australian people. 16:49 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I really welcome the opportunity to reflect on Senator Kovacic's question at the start of question time today, because it's an opportunity to reflect on the many investments the Albanese Labor government is making in the people of South Australia and in cost-of-living relief, not to mention economic investments, investments in industry, investments in social policy and investments in payments. These are all, in my view, fundamentally good things. They reflect what is a clear distinction between us and those opposite in what you see as the role and value of government. Now, I believe government can make an extraordinary difference in people's lives by making the right investments in social policy, making careful and considered investments in things like the payment system. I believe it is the role of government to support industry and to support opportunities for economic growth and development. That's reflective of the investments we have made over recent weeks and months and in the years we have been in government. Take a moment to reflect on some of those investments in recent weeks. I don't see anything to argue with. Investments in superannuation on paid parental leave are significant investments that will make a difference not just for the women who receive this payment but for how we conceptualise paid parental leave as a workplace entitlement in this country. It builds on the legislation which passed this chamber this very day and which was about expanding paid parental leave, maintaining the connection between employee and employer, seeing it as a workplace entitlement rather than welfare payment. That announcement was made in recent weeks. That announcement is going to make a significant difference in people's lives and in that reconceptualisation. It will make a significant difference in closing the gender pay gap and in women's retirement incomes. Increases to indexation and the pension will benefit five million pension and allowance recipients, making a significant difference during what we all acknowledge to be significant cost-of-living pressures on Australians across the board but especially those who rely on them to make ends meet. Those indexation payments will make a significant difference. I don't think that expenditure is not well spent, and neither are the investments in Indigenous housing made in the Northern Territory in recent weeks. They are much-needed investments for communities who desperately need housing, improvements and upgrades, and this will make a difference. There is critical minerals industry support. That's a significant thing which I'm shocked the other side would be opposed to. When you step back and unpack the investments and expenditure made, I believe you will see these are fundamentally good things which will make a difference in people's lives. That's the difference between our government and those opposite. We believe in spending to support our policy priorities and values. We believe in the role of government to support Australians and to promote and enhance industry. We believe in the role of government to drive increases in wages, which have been long overdue. That's why we advocated for and supported increases to the minimum wage as well as for aged-care workers. Of course, all these things need to be done in a responsible way. Need I remind those opposite that we delivered a surplus last year? You guys ordered the mugs but didn't actually deliver it on paper. That's something our government has done, and every decision we have taken since coming to government has been designed not to add pressures to inflation, to be done in a responsible way and, of course, to do things that meet our social and economic policy objectives. We come to government to do something. In the Labor Party, we come to government to try to reshape our country and to try to reshape public policy so it's working better for a broader range of people—particularly so it's working better for those who are most likely to benefit from government investments, who are most likely be in need of government support, whether it be for their industry or their particular social or economic situation. We in the Labor Party believe in that. I think it's a quirky criticism to make of us that we would be making decisions like investing in paid parental leave, supporting increases to the payment system and making critical economic investments that will lead to further jobs and opportunities for generations of young people. These are fundamentally good things reflective of Labor values, and our budget as well will be reflective of Labor values because it will be responsible. We know a responsible budget is critical to us being able to deliver for Australians and to deliver for South Australians, as we will continue to do as long as we're in government. 16:54 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland What we are seeing from those sitting opposite is a government spending like a drunken sailor. There have been over $6 billion worth of spending announcements in the last week. That's unfair to drunken sailors because, typically, drunken sailors are spending their own money. They are not spending the money of taxpayers; they are spending their own money. But this government are spending taxpayer money or they are borrowing money, and the Australian taxpayers will have to pay the interest on that borrowed money for decades to come. We saw from the current Labor government over $6.7 billion of additional spending announcements in the last week—in one week! What have we seen since the Albanese Labor government came to power? We have seen $379 billion more in taxes collected under the Albanese Labor government since they came to power and an additional $209 billion in spending. Now, in the short term, when you had iron ore prices at record highs, you could cover that spending. But the problem is—and this has always been the case—over the cycle, commodity prices come down and that's what we are seeing now. Since the start of the year iron ore prices, for example, have come down by nearly 20 per cent. Commodity prices are coming down. That taxation revenue from the iron ore industry, the mining industry et cetera which has propped up the government spending is simply not going to be there at the same levels next year. Who suffers? The Australian people will suffer. The RBA put out a document earlier this year which talked about the fall in real disposable income. This is the cost-of-living crisis. This is not a senator's document; this is the RBA. The RBA said, 'The rate of real disposable income has declined by 5.5 per cent since early 2022'—the time of the last election—'the largest decrease observed in around three decades.' In 30 years, real household disposable income has fallen by 5.5 per cent, the highest rate in the last three decades. Question agreed to. Energy 76 16:58 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator McAllister) relating to nuclear power. One Nation supports a power grid composed of the lowest-cost energy, of which nuclear is an important component. Nuclear, though, threatens the government's obsession with wind and solar. Net zero using wind and solar continues to reduce the living standards, housing affordability and job prospects of everyday Australians. Nothing illustrates the net zero house of cards more than the CSIRO's information on nuclear power—misinformation which Minister Bowen is using to maintain support for wind and solar. For the record, today there are 440 nuclear power plants operating in 33 countries. In 2022, these provided 2,545 terawatts of baseload power, about 10 per cent of the world's electricity consumption. There are currently 57 conventional nuclear power stations under construction. The last five plants were completed in 10 years or less. There are examples of plants that were bogged down in approval and financing issues as a result of Green activism and ideology and just as many which were not. Some critics describe nuclear as 1940s technology. If so, this makes electric vehicles technology from 1888. Both are dishonest comments because the technology has evolved. Nuclear is now safer, more efficient and produces negligible waste. The International Energy Agency data of actual energy costs shows nuclear the cheapest option at $28 per megawatt hour, making it cheaper in the real world than solar and wind. In their criticism of nuclear, Minister Bowen and the CSIRO are using speculation on the costing of small modular reactors, which do not yet exist and which are not representative of a traditional plant. This sleight of hand is misinformation bordering on scientific dishonesty. Safe, affordable, accessible baseload nuclear power energy comes down to one thing: the will of the government. Honesty, Minister, would be a good start. Question agreed to. Middle East 76 17:00 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong to my question without notice today on UNRWA funding. This was a useless and terrible response. After 48 days, and under intense and sustained pressure from the community and the Greens, the Labor government has been forced under pressure to reverse its disgraceful suspension of UNRWA funding, a decision that should never have been made in the first place. It is clear that Minister Wong suspended funding for UNRWA without any evidence of Israel's claim. In a world where Palestinian lives mattered to the Labor Party, this would be a political scandal for a sitting minister. Yet, predictably, there has not even been an acknowledgement of the gross negligence and no apology from the Labor Party. Is this how low the standard is for the Labor government's decision-making when it comes to Palestine? Labor's decision to suspend UNRWA funding did not just compound starvation and suffering for Palestinians; it also aided Israel in its tactic to distract the world one day after the ICJ ruling that found that Israel is plausibly committing genocide and ordered Israel to take all measures to ensure aid reaches Palestinians in Gaza. The Labor government is now providing cover for Israel's atrocity. The Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and other international organisations have said Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Sally Abi Khalil, Oxfam's Middle East and North Africa regional director, has said: 'Gaza's stocking descent into starvation was so predictable as to be premeditated, an ongoing war crime by the government of Israel.' The UN has warned of famine. They say malnutrition among children is spreading fast and reaching devastating and unprecedented levels in the Gaza Strip due to the wide-reaching impact of the war and ongoing restrictions on aid delivery. At least 23 children in northern Gaza have died from malnutrition and dehydration in recent weeks, adding to the over 13,000 children already slaughtered by Israel. That's 13,000 hopes and dreams and families shattered for ever. As the minister announced resumption of UNRWA funding, there was also an announcement that Australia would send over aerial delivery parachutes so they can assist in aid drops to Palestinians who are being starved. Well, how ironic, how hypocritical and how pathetic. The Australian government could today make a decision to end their support for Israel's genocide, could stop arming Israel, could today sanction Netanyahu and his war cabinet and could today publicly start putting pressure on Israel to stop the massacre and to open all land corridors for the rapid delivery of humanitarian aid. Yet what we have here? 140 parachutes. For shame! The ICJ ordered Israel to take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance. Yet, in brazen and criminal violation of this ruling, Israel continues to block and impede access to aid in Gaza. The UN has repeatedly asked the world to act and for Israel to allow aid into all parts of Gaza. Having killed over 31,000 Palestinians, Israel is now starving children to death, and their genocide is leading to mass hunger and famine. Yet the Labor government continues to support Israel's genocide in Gaza. The Labor government, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and foreign minister Penny Wong, history will remember you as enablers of genocide who suspended funding to people most in need who are being starved by Israel. Is this how you want to be remembered? Weasel words, meaningless words, weak words is all Labor has to offer. Imploring Israel to allow aid in will not achieve anything. Force Israel to allow aid in. Stop arming Israel. Stop aiding and abetting their war crimes. Place sanctions on Israel. You have the power, and you are using it to support and protect Israel's actions in Gaza. History will remember you for this and history will judge you harshly for this. People will not forgive, and they will not forget. People will keep talking about Palestine until Palestine is free. Question negatived. NOTICES 77 NOTICES Presentation 77 17:05 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to various bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings. I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for the bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024 Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024 Leave granted. The statements read as follows— STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2024 AUTUMN SITTINGS APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2023-2024 APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2023-2024 APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 2) 2023-2024 Purpose of the Bills The 2023-24 Additional Estimates Bills will propose appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to fund additional government expenditure to be incurred in 2023-24. Reasons for Urgency Appropriations proposed in the Additional Estimates Bills will provide funding to implement decisions that involve further expenditure in 2023-24, which have been made since the 2023-24 Budget. Passage in the 2024 Autumn sittings is required to ensure continuity of the Government's programs and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the 2023-24 financial year as they fall due; and facilitate the commencement of new measures that the Government may announce. AUTONOMOUS SANCTIONS AMENDMENT BILL Purpose of the Bill The Bill seeks to amend the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 to confirm the validity of existing and future sanctions made under the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011. More specifically the bill would: confirm that sanctions based on past conduct or past status are valid; and clarify that in circumstances where it is not explicitly clear whether or not a Minister exercised their discretion to list or not list, that the listing is nonetheless valid. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the Bill in the 2024 Autumn sittings is required to confirm as soon as possible, the validity of listings based on past conduct/status beyond doubt, as well as clarify the validity of listings that rely on the Minister's discretion to impose sanctions. It is important that any perceived ambiguities in the Act be addressed in a prompt manner, to avoid potential confusion as to the operation of the framework. Sanctions need to be clear as non-compliance carries criminal penalties. The Bill would provide certainty and transparency to individuals and businesses, so that they can effectively comply with sanctions laws. BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (COMMUNITY TELEVISION) BILL Purpose of the Bill The Bill allows for the extension of existing community television licences, provide instrument making powers for the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) for when an alternate technology or use of spectrum is identified in the future and harmonise code-making arrangements for community television licensees. Reasons for Urgency Community television licences in Melbourne and Adelaide are set to expire on 30 June 2024 unless amendments are made to the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (RA) and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA). If the licences expire, community television operators will no longer have access to the broadcasting services bands and their services will cease as a result. Viewers will no longer have access to these services. This Bill needs to be passed during the 2024 Autumn sittings to allow time for the ACMA to commence and complete a number of consultation and merit assessment processes required to extend the existing licences before the critical 30 June 2024 expiration date. These cannot commence until the community television amendment is passed. This includes varying the Melbourne Television Licence Area Plan, which, as a legislative instrument, requires consultation be undertaken under section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003. Consultation processes require a reasonable period of time to complete. Additionally, the ACMA will need to reissue a broadcasting services licence under Part 6 of the BSA, which requires a merits-based assessment. The reapplication process should not commence until it is certain there will be continued access to broadcasting services bands under the RA. The Bill passing the Parliament in March would allow for these processes to commence, be implemented and finalised prior to 30 June 2024. COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (FAIR GO FOR CONSUMERS AND SMALL BUSINESS) BILL 2024 Purpose of the Bill The Bill will provide fairer outcomes to consumers and small businesses by: enabling designated consumer and small business advocates to submit a complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) where they have evidence of a significant or systemic market issue affecting consumers or small businesses in Australia. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the Bill in the 2024 Autumn sittings is required to: enable reliant subordinate legislation and administrative systems to be in place before the ACCC is expected to commence receiving designated complaints from designated complainants in July 2024, as announced by the Government. SOCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CHILD SUPPORT AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE MEASURES) BILL 2024 Purpose of the Bill This Bill introduces amendments to child support and family assistance legislation clarify the intended operation of the 'interim period' provisions for child support and family tax benefit (FTB). The 'interim period' provisions are relevant for determining a person's percentage of care for a child if a care arrangement (i.e. court order, or written agreement) is not being complied with. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the bill in the 2024 Autumn sittings is required to remedy as soon as practicable the unintended outcome of amendments by the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Act 2018, to the 'interim period' provisions for determining a person's percentage of care for a child. Where there is a written care arrangement in place for a child (such as a parenting order or a parenting plan) a person's percentage of care for the child may be based on the written care arrangement for an 'interim period' (instead of the actual care that each person has for the child). At the end of the interim period, a person's percentage of care for the child will be based on the actual care. This encourages compliance with written care arrangements, especially court ordered arrangements, and reduces the child support and FTB impact on a parent when the other parent unilaterally withholds care of a child in contravention of a written care arrangement. The effect of the 2018 amendments is that access to the interim period provisions is not available in almost all instances. This has the unintended consequence of rewarding non-compliance with written care arrangements by the separated parents of a child. NOTICES 79 NOTICES Presentation 79 BUSINESS 80 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 80 17:05 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That private senators' bills be considered this week as follows: (a) Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024, on Wednesday, 20 March 2024; and (b) Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018, on Thursday, 21 March 2024. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 80 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 80 17:06 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for 18 March: (a) Senator Dean Smith, on account of parliamentary business; and (b) Senator Nampijinpa Price, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 80 17:06 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Sterle for today, on account of parliamentary business; (b) Senator Wong for today, for personal reasons; and (c) Senator Stewart from 18 to 21 March 2024, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 81 17:07 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Barbara Pocock for 18 to 21 March, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 81 17:07 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Hanson for 18 and 19 March, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 81 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 81 17:08 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. Opportunities and Risks Arising from Artificial Intelligence Committee 81 Appointment 81 17:08 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: (1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on the Opportunities and Risks Arising from Artificial Intelligence (AI), be established to inquire into and report on: (a) the opportunities and risks that AI presents for Australia, including in relation to: (i) the economy, including jobs, skills, productivity and financial markets, (ii) national security, defence and cybersecurity, (iii) democratic institutions, including misinformation and disinformation, (iv) privacy, (v) copyright, (vi) health, and (vii) wellbeing; (b) the context for AI in Australia, including: (i) the growth and trajectory of AI domestically and internationally, and (ii) comparative international advantages, performance and regulatory and policy settings, and their impact on the uptake and growth of AI in Australia and Australia's AI capabilities; (c) the education, skills and workforce required to harness the opportunities and address the risks of AI; (d) potential reforms to harness the opportunities and address the risks of AI; (e) alternative technological innovations to AI; and (f) any related matters. (2) That the committee present its final report by 29 November 2024. (3) That the committee consist of 8 members, as follows: (a) three senators or members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, at least 1 of whom shall be a senator; (b) three senators or members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, at least 1 of whom shall be a senator; (c) one senator nominated by minority party or independent senators; and (d) one member of the House of Representatives nominated by any minority party or independent member. (4) That: (a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; (b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and (c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present. (5) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (6) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report. (7) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (8) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Government Whip in the House of Representatives. (9) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant. (10) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee. (11) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (12) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member of either House and 1 non-government member of either House. (13) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (14) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a deliberative vote but no casting vote, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting. (15) That 2 members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum if that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member of either House and 1 non-government member of either House. (16) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (17) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, to adjourn from time to time, to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (18) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (19) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (20) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution. 17:08 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 The government does not support this motion. This is a complex policy area with work currently underway across government. The proposed inquiry is broad in scope, canvassing a range of topics related to AI across several portfolios and areas of parliamentary work undertaken over the full year. We believe there are more targeted vehicles for the Senate to consider this important policy area and look forward to discussing it further. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator McGrath for the establishment of a select committee on the opportunities and risks arising from artificial intelligence be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:13]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 83 DOCUMENTS Department of Education 83 Order for the Production of Documents 83 17:16 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia At the request of Senator Henderson, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 490 standing in her name. Leave granted. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 I move the motion as amended: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) order for the production of documents no. 374, agreed to by the Senate on 7 November 2023, relating to the Minister for Education's review of the HELP ATO payments system, has only been partially complied with, and (ii) a further order, no. 465, agreed to by the Senate on 27 February 2024, requiring the Minister to fully comply with order for the production of documents no. 374, by no later than 5 pm on 28 February 2024, has not been complied with; (b) unless the order is complied with in full by 18 March 2024, the Minister representing the Minister for Education be required to attend the chamber after motions to take note of answers on 20 March 2024 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to fully 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 5 minutes each. 17:17 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania by leave—The government will not be supporting this motion. The minister responded to the order made on 27 February by letter on 29 February. The minister has maintained his claim of public interest immunity in relation to certain documents sought. That claim is consistent with longstanding practices under previous governments. The minister has previously said that this issue would be considered by the Australian Universities Accord. It has been addressed in the accord final report, which has now been released. A response to that report is under consideration by the government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator O'Sullivan standing in the name of Senator Henderson regarding compliance with orders for the production of documents be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:19]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

38 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel 84 Order for the Production of Documents 84 17:22 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) on 28 February 2024, order for production of documents no. 474 was agreed by the Senate, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to table documents by no later than 10am 29 February 2024; (ii) the order has not been complied with by the deadline; and (iii) in a letter of response dated 29 February 2024 the Minister claimed the document may contain prejudicial information but did not raise a public interest immunity claim; (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence by 2pm 19 March 2024: (i) the advice referred to in the letter dated 29 February 2024 that the Final Report of the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel may prejudice criminal proceedings, with identifying details of the proceedings redacted; (ii) the date government expects to complete consultation with the Office of the Special Investigator; and (c) unless the Final Report of the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel has been tabled, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence be required to attend the chamber after motions to take note of answers on 20 March 2024 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order no. 474; and (d) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (c). (e) any motion under paragraph (d) 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. 17:22 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 The government will not be supporting this motion. As the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in his letter dated 29 February that was provided to the Senate, the final report of the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel sought in this order was handed to the government in November 2023 and is currently under thorough consideration. The advice is clear that premature release of the report may potentially prejudice criminal proceedings relating to war crimes, and further consultations with other agencies, namely the Office of the Special Investigator, are required. 17:23 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I ask that the question on paragraphs (a) and (b) be put separately to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and in doing so I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The opposition will be supporting the substance of this motion in relation to the order for the production of documents but will await the response before deciding whether the Minister representing the Minister for Defence should be required to attend the chamber to explain. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 This motion will be put into two parts. The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts, parts (a) and (b) only, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:25]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

38 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 17 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

17:28 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I now intend to put the second part of Senator Roberts' motion. I put the question that parts (c), (d) and (e) of Senator Roberts' motion be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Roberts 266524 We don't need a division. My mistake. Question negatived. MATTERS OF URGENCY 86 MATTERS OF URGENCY Environment 86 17:30 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Government is breaking an election promise to strengthen our environment laws and is attempting to prevent First Nations people having a voice by pushing through the Parliament a bill to fast track offshore gas projects." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 17:30 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Government is breaking an election promise to strengthen our environment laws and is attempting to prevent First Nations people having a voice by pushing through the Parliament a bill to fast track offshore gas projects." This government said back on election night in May 2022 that they were committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and listening to First Nations voices. Now, this government has also committed to strengthening the environment laws and it's said it is committed to strong action on climate change. Schedule 2, part 2 of the offshore petroleum greenhouse gas and storage amendment bill currently before the parliament flies in the face of all of these commitments. To add insult to injury, this change has been hidden in an otherwise exceptionally important bill that makes much-needed improvements to offshore worker safety—offshore worker safety, which has been campaigned on for many years. Not only is this government breaking an election promise; it's doing so under the guise of worker safety. It is shameless and it is spineless that this government wants us to think it's taking action on climate change seriously and that they are actually listening to First Nations voices when in reality this is a sneaky act. What will the Minister for Resources, in fact, obtain through these wide-reaching powers? We have no indication of what they are, just that we're going to carve it off and give it to the resources minister. We're going to hide it in a section of the bill away from the crossbench, other environment groups and other people from the crossbench, environment groups and other people that attended the hearing last Thursday here in this place. They didn't even bother to tell us here in the Greens about the bill at all, and I meet with the Minister for Resources on a quarterly basis. They clearly tried to sneak this one through and hoped that no-one would actually notice. They're embarrassed that this plan did not work. This gives the resources minister a blank cheque to weaken consultation requirements and fast-track all those gas projects to open up any new fossil fuel projects against the wishes of First Nations people and against the climate science. Guess whose voices they're listening to. They're listening to Santos, Woodside, Inpex, Jera and others that they're so eager to please. This comes off that FOI letter from the CEO of Santos about traditional owners winning cases left, right and centre. This government is doing the bidding of the gas cartel. (Time expired) 17:33 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland This motion today confirms that the Greens don't support a prosperous Australia. They don't support Australian workers or understand the importance of supporting investment. They either don't understand the importance of the resources sector or are so arrogant that they don't care about the benefits that it brings. The Greens are simply empowered by one motive: playing politics. They would rather generate hot air in this chamber and fearmonger than come to the table like adults and work on delivering real policy that helps Australians. Whilst they all benefit from the resources sector, they refused to support it. The hypocrisy is rife because they're happy to drive on roads built by taxes resource companies pay, drink from glasses manufactured with gas and use their phones and laptops built with Australian minerals, yet they continue to appear in this chamber and try to drag the whole sector through the mud and shame the more than one million Australians who work in the sector. We know that the resources sector is responsible for and is to thank for propping up the budget and is to thank for the schools and hospitals that we enjoy and the roads we drive on. Yet you won't hear the Greens acknowledge this. They just ask for more and more, until there is nothing left. What you'll hear from the Greens is that they don't actually speak on behalf of all Indigenous Australians. They only like to talk about those that fit their ideological crusade. I'm sure you won't hear about the Indigenous voices who do support the resources sector. I've had the pleasure of meeting with members of the Top End Aboriginal Coastal Alliance, who gave evidence at this hearing last week. A group of Indigenous Australians— Senator McDONALD 123072 How appalling to have those people undermined in this very place, when we are supposed to be here to represent them. I'd ask you not to do that. It is a group of Aboriginal Australians from northern Australia who support the resources sector because they know the value that projects like the Barossa project bring to their communities. The Greens never talk about communities like these. The Greens would much rather parrot the talking points of the Environmental Defenders Office, an organisation that receives taxpayer funds to try and sabotage our nation's wealth-generating industries. What an outstanding, upstanding organisation they are, with allegations of witness coaching and confected evidence. Yet the Greens are happy to be strongly associated with that organisation. I'm sure that those on the government benches are proud to be spending millions of dollars on funding that organisation. What about the government—the alleged party of the workers? Thanks to their terrible energy policies we are seeing manufacturing jobs leave this country. The mess this government has created is costing Australian workers and costing the country. We see senators on the other side talk about how proud they are of their union backgrounds and their support for Australian workers, so let's see what the unions have said. Brad Gandy, secretary of the AWU's Western Australian branch, called out the exploitation risk that is occurring in the offshore oil and gas regulations, saying: The vulnerabilities in the regime that are being exploited must be closed, whilst retaining the integrity that the process needs. AWU national secretary Paul Farrow expressed concern that workers were becoming 'collateral damage' in the campaign to destroy the oil and gas industry—a campaign the government is helping to fund through the payments to the EDO. I raise this question: how can Australian workers have faith that Labor supports them? The answer is that Labor does not, and it's become apparent that the coalition is the real party of working Australians because Labor's only solution is to talk about how they support Australian jobs, while their policies lead to the closures and jobs fleeing offshore. As investment and capital flees, thanks to their energy policies and industrial relations disaster, more jobs will leave. The coalition remains an ardent supporter of Australia's resources sector. We remain committed to ensuring that this crucial industry, which generates and delivers so much wealth, is able to keep investing in our nation. It's worth recognising just how important this contribution is. Australia's gas industry generated $92 billion in export earnings in the last financial year, which provided direct economic support to federal, state and territory budgets. It powers energy and manufacturing across the entire country and provides secure energy to many of our international partners. 17:38 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia We stand here with one party over there that's all about resources and absolutely nothing about the environment, we stand over here with the other party in this chamber that's all environment and no resources—with neither looking at a sensible punt down the middle that gives us the resources we need and protects the environment that we so desperately need to protect. What we're dealing with in this chamber today is another case of misrepresentation of reality by our colleagues in the Greens. There is either a significant lack of understanding about what is in front of us here or wilful misleading for political gain. We are talking about a review of Australia's offshore environmental management framework to ensure that it's fit for purpose. We know, because we've heard from First Nations people and environmental groups, that it isn't working effectively at this point in time, so we are reviewing it to make sure it does. We've heard that consultation for offshore resource projects isn't targeted or culturally appropriate. That's not okay. The Albanese Labor government is working to fix that. The plan is to actually make this consultation appropriate so that we are listening to First Nations people and so that it is targeted and culturally appropriate. There will not be any watering down of environmental standards. There will not be any rushed offshore projects, as has already been declared in this chamber. Those things are not happening. It is not true. I'd also like to point out that this review isn't a secret. It's not something that's just arrived in this chamber. It is something that was announced in the 2023 budget. It was quite some time ago, so those who are struggling to get their heads around it have had plenty of time to get briefings, to ask further questions or to investigate this. There is no need to just use this as some crazy ongoing political football, which we've seen for so many years. The central premise of this motion is that the Labor government is breaking its election commitments. That is just a farce. It's not true. After a decade of environmental negligence and wasted time by the coalition, coupled with some less than helpful contributions from the Greens, the government is getting on with the job of delivering better outcomes for the environment and driving down our emissions. We've committed to net zero by 2050. We've committed to 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030. We have significant investments in renewables and significant projects. We also now have stronger fuel efficiency standards and a $2 billion investment in green hydrogen. Our climate safeguard laws also mean that any project has some pretty strict guidelines and caps. Any coal or gas project must comply with that and must work towards our net zero commitment. We understand that action to address climate change has to go hand in hand with protecting our environment and our biodiversity. We've invested significantly in projects across our environment. We've worked very hard to offset some of the significant decline that we have seen through a decade of inaction by those opposite when they were in government. They have neglected the environment. They have reduced the protections. They ignored the Samuel review. They held $40 million aside for Indigenous projects on the Murray and didn't spend a single cent. We have promised to provide stronger environmental protection, and that is what we are working on. That is what we are going to deliver. It is a huge task on the back of the neglect and the inaction that we've seen, which resulted in significant decline. Just to be clear: there will be no environmental standards watered down, there will be no fast-tracking of projects and there will be no weakening of consultation requirements. (Time expired) 17:43 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia This is another case of the Greens political party misrepresenting and falsifying the Labor government's environmental action response. I'd like to thank my incredible colleague, Senator Grogan, for highlighting so many of the farcical things that they are putting out there. They never let the truth get in the way of a good clip for social media. So let me start by getting the facts on the record, and we'll keep reiterating these facts as long as it takes. There are no environmental standards that will be watered down, there will be no fast track for offshore projects and no consultation requirements will be weakened. Feel free to clip that, Senator McKim. Minister King is undertaking a process to review Australia's offshore environmental management framework to ensure it is fit for process. A holistic review was not undertaken for an entire decade when those opposite were in government. So it is incumbent on our government to review the rules and regulations governing the resources sector to ensure those rules and regulations remain fit for purpose. As Senator Grogan outlined, this review is not a secret. It was announced by our government in the 2023 budget. An essential part of this review is to clarify consultation provisions that apply to offshore oil and gas projects. The government takes that responsibility very seriously and is working to strengthen the occupational health and safety outcomes for the offshore resources industry through appropriate improvements. The regulation changes proposed by the government are simple. They are in response to safety reviews. As Minister King has said, there is no planned change to rigorous environmental assessments. Time and time again we have heard from the people on the ground that the current system of consultation for offshore resource projects is not working effectively. This government refuses to undermine the essential consultation process; therefore it is within our responsibility to appropriately address those concerns regarding the ineffective processes that are currently in place. What we have here is the Greens, yet again, standing in the way of better outcomes for First Nations people, local councils, environmental groups, local industry and our resources sectors. Australians have seen how politically performative fights from the other side have stopped action on climate change for almost a decade. No-one wants to see that again. Just last week, in a Senate committee hearing on this bill, it was stated that the current consultation process is not only ineffective but also culturally inappropriate. Please allow me to jog your memory on a wasted decade of environmental neglect and instability in this country by none other than the Liberals, the Nationals and the contributions, or lack thereof, from the Greens. This government is responding to a decade of detrimental inaction, placing us back on the trajectory where the environment is at the forefront of our agenda through fulfilling the commitments we've made. We all know that transformation cannot happen overnight, but we're working overtime to get there for the betterment of this country. The Albanese Labor government is committed to fulfilling its obligation. We know that better consultation leads to greater confidence and better outcomes. The government knows the importance of working together to achieve collaborative solutions for all Australians. So, together with the crossbench and stakeholders, we need to achieve sensible amendments to give everyone further confidence about the intent of the changes in this bill. The government has made its position very clear: we need a better system of offshore consultation that works for everybody. To sum it up, the proposed amendments are there to strengthen and represent the government's ongoing commitment to improving outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector. I would like to invite the Greens— (Time expired) 17:48 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia If you want to know what this schedule of this particular bill that we are debating today means, you just need to have a look at who asked for it. It was asked for, begged for, by some of the country's biggest gas cartel CEOs, including the head of Santos. Santos has just been in a long battle with the traditional owners in the north of the country because they want to not just wreck their traditional sea country but, of course, continue to make the climate crisis worse. If you want to know the truth about this amendment, look at who is putting it forward. It has been snuck into a bill that is virtually irrelevant to the topic of cutting this consultation. It has been snuck in by the resources minister, even though it is directly related to the Minister for the Environment's job and role. This bill is a gag on First Nations people. This bill allows for the trashing and bypassing of environmental laws, and it is about fast tracking big climate-wrecking gas projects. The CEOs of the biggest gas companies in the country want it. The traditional owners in the areas where these companies want to build these gas projects oppose it. And the minister in charge of it is the minister who is doing the bidding of the big fossil fuel industries, not the minister whose job it is to protect the environment. If you want to know what is really going on, they are the facts. This government now have a broken promise on this. They first promised the Australian people that they would listen and consult with First Nations people in these types of issues and would give them a voice. They also promised that they would strengthen and fix our environmental laws. These new schedules in this bill break those promises. The government also promised to take urgent climate action and to take the climate crisis seriously, and all this bill will do—these sneaky changes, fast-tracking the approval, bypassing environmental laws for the gas cartel—is drive the climate crisis to become much worse and supercharge pollution. (Time expired) 17:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland () (): Aboriginal communities should have a voice. The question is, in addition to their own, whose voice? There is a need to protect Aboriginal communities from unethical, litigious environmentalists who don't care about their welfare and who instead exploit Aboriginals. I refer to individuals like Mick O'Leary and his involvement in the Environmental Defenders Office against the Santos Prosser project. The Federal Court not only found that Santos's pipeline would not cause harm to local traditional owners but also found Mr O'Leary had lied to Tiwi Islanders about his cultural mapping exercise that was used to claim the project would harm Tiwi Islands culture. This is not the first time the Environmental Defenders Office have manufactured cultural heritage to hold up vital developments. In this case, the Federal Court found them out, and Minister Plibersek has written to that Environmental Defenders Office reminding them of their ethical obligations. What needs to happen is for the government to cut off taxpayer funding for the Environmental Defenders Office. (Time expired) 17:53 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Off the back of the Voice referendum and two historic court cases about inadequate consultation with First Nations people on offshore projects, the first action the government is taking in the First Nations space is to silence their voices. Schedule 2 part 2 of the amendment proposed for the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 threatens to sideline the environment minister, to bypass environmental approvals and First Nations consultation, which would otherwise be required by the EPBC Act, in order to facilitate new oil, coal and gas approvals, in particular offshore oil and gas. This schedule would mean that any action that is approved under the offshore petroleum regime, including any offshore environmental management regime, is taken to be within the scope of EPBC Act accreditation. In other words, there is no need to get fresh environmental accreditation. That offshore gas environmental regime is taken to be accredited, no matter what changes this or future governments might make. This is a total carveout for offshore oil and gas from our environmental laws, and it gives the resources minister the power to be the sole arbiter of environmental management. Yet we hear the protestations from the government: 'That isn't at all what they are intending.' Well, don't write laws that do what you don't want them to do. Fix it. If that's not your intention, fix it. This amendment, as written, would trash our environmental laws. It makes a mockery of consultation, with its explicit aim of fast-tracking climate-wrecking oil and gas projects. We know that gas is as dirty as coal and that pollution from gas corporations is rising, pushing a safe climate out of reach. The last thing we need is a loophole for gas giants like Santos, who are pretty cranky that the government worked with the Greens on the Safeguard Mechanism to make it harder for them to open new gas mines. It is well beyond the time for truth and treaty in this country, yet we've seen the government vacate this space completely. First Nations people have been standing up for their right to be heard and consulted with. They've taken these gas giants to court and they've won. Now Santos wants the government to change the rules to favour those gas companies, and the government is delivering for Santos and the gas companies yet again. This is the same government that said on election night that it was committed to the Uluru statement and that it was committing to strengthening environmental laws. What a massive election promise breach that is, because they're now working with the climate deniers in the Liberals to carve out gas projects from environmental and cultural heritage laws. You are breaking an election promise by working with the Liberals, and you are silencing the voices of First Nations people for the sake of offshore gas. For shame! (Time expired) 17:56 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Right now, gas companies, backed by Labor and the coalition, are surrounding the coastline of this beautiful continent and threatening our sea country, our dreaming stories, our oceans and our climate. On Gunditjmara country right now, the community is alarmed about what will be the biggest seismic testing for oil and gas ever planned off the Victorian coast. This threatens our sacred sea country, the koontapool whale dreaming and precious ocean ecosystems. This government would rather deny First Peoples our right to free, prior and informed consent than stand up to their mates and big donors in the fossil fuel industry. To all the activists and supporters fighting to protect country, I say: keep going, because this is our children's future that we're fighting for. 17:57 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania This bill is not just one broken promise from the Labor Party; it is two broken promises from the Labor Party. Firstly, they promised to strengthen our environmental laws, and they are coming in here and weakening our environmental laws. Secondly, the government promised to listen to First Nations people in this country, and they are now reducing the capacity of First Nations people to have a say over massive gas developments that impact on their sea country. I guess the lessons for First Nations people in Australia is that they should donate as much money to the Labor Party as Woodside and Santos have, if, in fact, they want to be heard. If we ever needed a smoking gun to show just how much the gas cartel had completely purchased the Australian Labor Party, here it is. It lays bare the hold that the gas cartel has on this parliament. It is a stark reminder of who actually calls the shots in here, and that, of course, is the giant climate-destroying gas corporations. And who has marched in here, obsequiously serving the gas cartel? That's right; it's the Australian Labor Party. Who are the lickspittles and the lackeys and the toadies to the giant climate-destroying gas corporations? That's right; it's the Australian Labor Party—the absolute vassals to the psychopaths running the gas corporations in this place; the bootlickers to the giant gas corporations. The Australian Labor Party is showing today that it is prepared to serve the corporate interests of the gas cartel over and above the future wellbeing of every person and every species on this beautiful planet that we all inhabit. We should be surprised, but, unfortunately, we are not surprised, because, time after time after time, in here marches the Australian Labor Party to do the bidding of the big corporations. Whether it's Coles and Woolworths, whether it's Woodside and Santos, whether it's big banks, whether it's big gaming, this is a party that has sold itself lock, stock and smoking barrel to the big corporations of this country. And who's missing out? It's the people who are getting price-gouged at the checkouts in Coles and Woolworths. Who's missing out? It's people whose lives are being destroyed by climate change because this government is too weak, craven and cowardly to stand up to the giant gas corporations. Shame, shame, shame on the Labor Party! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:04]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Walsh)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 22 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 91 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE National Security 91 18:06 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 A letter has been received from Senator Hughes: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The endless chaos when it comes to the Albanese Labor Government's management of Australia's borders, and the complete failure of the Government to protect the community from illegal boat arrivals and detainees released into the community. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 18:07 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Well, surprise, surprise! Quelle horreur! You give a Labor government a little bit of time, and the borders come crashing down around us. And, as usual, the hypocrisy of those opposite shines bright for us all to see. Of course, you will recall that, when the coalition was in government, we stopped the boats. We dealt with the offshore concerns of Manus and Nauru. But, just last month, we've already heard that 40 illegal arrivals were detained, with reports that there were some already being transferred to Nauru at the time media outlets were reporting on it. So it's no surprise to anyone to hear that immigration detention is unravelling on their watch. This is the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government all over again—probably worse. When Labor's incompetence last led to 50,000 people arriving on more than 800 boats and 1,200 people, including children, tragically dying at sea, all of that could have been prevented. But, unfortunately, Australians are being sadly reminded that they just can't trust Labor when it comes to national security. The fact is, as Peter Dutton has asserted, that Anthony Albanese has never believed in Operation Sovereign Borders. In the last budget, on a cumulative basis, $600 million was stripped from Border Force and from Operation Sovereign Borders. The ABF commissioner pointed out that resources and personnel were already being stretched, and that of course increases concerns about whether vigilant surveillance can be undertaken in the way that it was when we were last in government. We know that temporary protection visas have been abolished in just another example of train-wreck policy from this government. Australians cannot trust Labor to keep them safe. But will Labor do anything at all about this? This government could actually try and be upfront with the people. What's the plan to stop this from occurring? How do you plan to keep Australians safe? As Dan Tehan points out, the Solicitor-General, Stephen Donaghue, told the High Court on 8 November 2023 that up to 340 people in long-term detention could be released as a result of NZYQ. We don't know if this is the number of criminals that Labor will release or if that number could be even higher. Is this Labor government giving up on deporting non-citizens who, because of their crimes, have forfeited their right to live in Australia? Will Labor promise to provide weekly updates on then umber of criminals being released from immigration detention on their watch? Will Labor promise to be upfront and tell us when crimes are committed? When will Labor publish the immigration detention statistics for January and February? Why are those figures being hidden? What is the Prime Minister's plan? A start could be if the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs started attending his own briefings. It's high time for the immigration minister to now guarantee he will actually attend legal briefings with his department, especially considering he's hired an additional 46 lawyers. We know that the Albanese Labor government blame the courts and say none of this is their fault, but we don't forget—long memories here—that immigration minister Andrew Giles signed off on the legal facts that undermined Australia's entire case. The same minister skipped three important legal briefings on this issue to instead travel overseas for a labour conference and to promote the Voice. Labor released 149 criminals on the wrong visa. Labor still has not applied for a single order under the preventive detention regime. And Labor cancelled the visas they'd recently issued to people who were in the air and en route to Australia from Gaza only to reinstate some of them with no explanation. This is total incompetence at the highest level in such a crucially important space. This isn't a game. This is about keeping our communities safe, the sovereignty of our nation and the lives of those who are arriving by boat. We cannot afford to be asleep at the wheel like this government clearly is. Instead of learning from the coalition on this issue or working to solve the crisis, Labor continues to make it worse. 18:12 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland What undermines national security is misleading statements about our national security: misleading statements about border security, misleading statements about Operation Sovereign Borders. That's exactly what the coalition continues to do. It's exactly what I believe they will do today in this debate. It's exactly what they've been asked not to do by the very people that are keeping Australians safe. We know that the Labor government remains committed to Operation Sovereign Borders. Despite the comments from the commander of Joint Agency Task Force Operation Sovereign Borders, those opposite continue to mislead the Senate and to mislead the public about the current operations of our borders. Admiral Brett Sonter said: The mission of Operation Sovereign Borders remains the same today as it was when it was established in 2013: protect Australia's borders, combat people smuggling in our region, and importantly, prevent people from risking their lives at sea. Importantly, he said: Any alternate narrative will be exploited by criminal people smugglers to deceive potential irregular immigrants and convince them to risk their lives and travel to Australia by boat. That is a clear warning to those opposite that this is a debate that needs to be dealt with in facts, that needs to be dealt with in sensitivity and that needs to be dealt with at the national security level, which I thought was bipartisan. If we want to talk about lawlessness, the other things that undermine the safety of Australians would be to ignore High Court decisions or to think that the parliament or politicians are above the law. That seems to be what those opposite are implying in their comments around the release of detainees. We know and Australians know that these decisions were of the High Court. The High Court made these decisions and, as a result, our government has put very strong measures in place to keep the Australian public safe. We are also working with our law enforcement agencies across the country, and we have faith in the work that they do. If those opposite do not believe that law enforcement agencies are capable of doing their jobs then they should say that, but we back our law enforcement agencies. We know that they have very strong measures in place. It is a real shame to see those opposite undermine the work of those law enforcement agencies. When it comes to possible alternatives or solutions, I'd love to see those opposite suggest what they might do in this situation. Actually, this morning on Sky News, they were given the chance. Senator Hume said: … if the legislative bar is too high, the coalition will come to the party and help them lower that bar. The reporter asked: 'How would you lower that bar? What would you do?' Senator Hume said, 'Well, that's up to the government.' This was followed up by these questions, which were pretty fair in the circumstances: 'Have you got an idea? Have you got any amendment that you'd like to see?' Of course, Senator Hume had nothing to add to the conversation. So until those opposite can come in here and provide some constructive discussion about really important national security issues, we won't be taking lectures from those opposite. We'll listen to the professionals. We'll listen to the people who are actually operationally in charge of protecting our borders, and we'll take their advice and do what they say and make sure that we don't make it harder for those law enforcement agencies. This is all about the contrast between our government and those opposite, because while we are focused on keeping Australians safe, the coalition is focused on stoking fear and division. While we are delivering tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners, the coalition won't say if they'll repeal those tax cuts—if they get a chance—and make Australians pay more. While we are strengthening Medicare, those opposite voted against cheaper medicines. While our government is delivering cleaner, cheaper energy, the LNP are out there spruiking expensive nuclear power in places like the Great Barrier Reef. Finally, while the Labor government is delivering super on paid parental leave, those opposite have referred to paid parental leave as a 'welfare scheme'. They are not so focused on delivering for women or their economic security. They're busy knocking off senior Liberal women from the top of their Senate tickets. So we won't be taking lectures on this side of the chamber—not about national security, not about lawlessness and certainly not about delivering for working Australians. 18:17 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania This motion references chaos, and let's be clear about where the chaos is coming from. Chaos is coming from the political ambitions of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. The chaos is coming from the near identical policies on immigration detention and responding to people seeking asylum shared by the Labor and Liberal parties. The chaos is coming from denying fundamental human rights to people who are reaching out a hand to our country and asking for assistance. The chaos is coming from a Liberal Party that is prepared to demonise migrants, refugees and people seeking asylum and weaponise the fear that they are sowing. The chaos is coming from a Labor Party too craven and too cowardly to stand up to that political strategy. Make no mistake, colleagues, the Australian Constitution is there to protect us all. Liberty should never be denied by a government in order to punish people. That's what the Constitution says. That is what the High Court has found. The Labor Party needs to stand up for the rule of law, to stand up for our Constitution and to stand up for natural justice and ignore Mr Dutton. 18:18 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales A race to the bottom—that's all you can see when you look at the Albanese government and the little Dutton-shaped devil on their shoulder. Some of the most marginalised people in the world came to Australia to rebuild their lives, and, instead of embracing them, we exiled them. We bribed our neighbours to become complicit in the cruelty, making Australia and the world a worse place in the process. For over a decade, families have been torn apart because the ALP and the coalition are in this disgusting competition amongst each other to see who can be the crueller. Just look at the more than 50 refugees who were deported from Australia to PNG by the last government. They're still trapped with no home and no protection. Denied their basic rights and a home to rebuild their lives, they're subjected to violence on almost daily basis. Nurul Chawdury told the Guardian that he'd watched fellow refugees die through murder, medical neglect and suicide. 'Things are very bad at the moment. It's very hard,' he told the Guardian yesterday. 'Some days we eat, some days we don't eat.' Nurul Chawdury, his wife and their two young children are going hungry as the ALP and coalition play their games out in this chamber. This MPI is asking entirely the wrong question. The real question is: who's protecting refugees from this government—who's protecting refugees from the ALP-coalition alliance of cruelty? 18:20 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak to this motion about the chaos that is being driven by the Albanese government. Let's put a little bit of a history lesson out there. We have to remember that most of these detainees are people who came here under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, whereby 50,000 refugees ended up in detention and over a thousand refugees drowned at sea. This isn't about vilifying refugees or anything like that. As a matter of fact, the last time Australia lifted its refugee intake it was under former Liberal minister Julie Bishop, who increased the number of refugees that Australia took. Australia has a very generous refugee policy and it's worth noting that we owe it to those refugees who are waiting in refugee camps around the world—who have done the right thing—that they are given priority. They are trying to do the right thing. They're in those refugee camps and they aren't paying refugee smugglers tens of thousands of dollars—and where refugees find that kind of money, I don't know—to do the wrong thing and bring people in illegally to this country. That is how this policy started. This is how we have got ourselves into the situation. No-one was talking about this issue six months ago until the current Labor government completely dropped the ball on this upcoming court case, which is no doubt funded by activists who are trying to undermine our strong border security. If you want to know how bad it can get, just take a look at the number of refugees that die in the Mediterranean every year while trying to cross the Mediterranean. Look at the number of refugees that are flooding the southern border of the great country of the United States of America. This is not the sort of behaviour that governments who care about the welfare of their own people engage in. So to sit here and somehow claim that it's the Liberal Party and attack Peter Dutton over the fact that we are trying to protect our borders and keep people safe, and we don't want to be wasting money paying for the incarceration fees of these people. This is not what we want. We want a methodical, fair process for having immigrants come to this country. That leads us to the other part of this MPI today, about border control in general. Just last week the ABS, the Australia Bureau of Statistics, released figures that show 55,000 immigrants came to Australia in the month of January alone. If that's extrapolated for 12 months, it's an immigration rate of up to 660,000 people. You have to ask yourself why the Albanese Labor government is letting so many immigrants into this country at a time when we have so many homeless Australians living in tent cities. You can't walk around my home town of Brisbane nowadays without seeing tent cities everywhere. I'm getting constituents contact me about it. I had a constituent contact me just last Saturday morning to tell me that they were on their morning walk in Bundaberg and they noticed that a mother and child were living in a tent under a bridge. This is not the Australia that I know. This is not the Australia that our constituents want to see. This is not the egalitarian way. Why is Labor allowing so many immigrants into this country? Why are they not stopping them? They said last year they'd lower the immigration rate, and they haven't. So we've not only got homelessness but we've got increased rents and people who have jobs who can't find a place to live. And, because we have inflation, we have the RBA sticking up interest rates. That's sending our builders broke, because our RBA is completely clueless. They're not only smashing demand; they're smashing supply and so our builders are going broke. We've not only got an increase in demand; we've got a reduction in supply, making the matter worse. I recommend that people support this motion because the Albanese Labor government is nothing but chaos when it comes to protecting Australia's borders and putting Australians first. 18:25 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The Albanese government has no higher priority than protecting the community and is committed to acting in accordance with the law. By contrast, the opposition has spent months wilfully misrepresenting the facts and the law and playing politics with community safety. Comments by the opposition that suggest that Operation Sovereign Borders is no longer in place is a flat-out mistruth and is directly counter to Australia's national security. Operation Sovereign Borders' policy architecture remains unchanged under this government. Unauthorised maritime arrivals—that is, people seeking to enter Australia on a boat, without a passport or visa—continue to be subject to offshore processing. We haven't changed our position. We provided bipartisan support under the previous government. But Mr Dutton just can't help himself. He continues to engage in the sort of dangerous and destructive rhetoric that is so characteristic of this Leader of the Opposition. He's becoming a marketing tool for people smugglers—a flashing neon light across the region, making Australia a false honeypot. Let's be clear: the Liberals and Nationals want more boats to arrive. Emboldening people smugglers for political gain is a horrific failure of leadership. Those opposite should know better than to use Senate processes like this MPI to peddle fear in the community and undermine our border operations. Rear Admiral Brett Sonter, Commander of the Joint Agency Task Force Operation Sovereign Borders, has made it abundantly clear. He said: The mission of Operation Sovereign Borders remains the same today as it was when it was established in 2013 … He went on to say one of the reasons was to 'prevent people from risking their lives'. He said: Any alternate narrative will be exploited by criminal people smugglers … The safety of the Australian community has been at the heart of every single decision this government has made. Following the High Court's decision, we put in place four additional layers of protection: the standing up of Operation AEGIS, a joint Australian Federal Police/Australian Border Force operation; stringent visa conditions, including curfews, electronic monitoring and reporting requirements; the Community Protection Board, consisting of officials from the Australian Border Force and the Department of Home Affairs, as well as former law enforcement officers; and, of course, court-ordered preventive detention and supervision orders—the same laws the opposition supported, may I add. Another piece of disinformation from the Leader of the Opposition is that we are cutting funding to the Australian Border Force, a claim that was rubbished in the Sydney Morning Herald in February this year by David Crowe. There has, in fact, been an increase of $470 million under this government, including more than $200 million this year. This is supported by the ABF—Australian Border Force—commissioner, Michael Outram, who said: Border Force funding is currently the highest it's been since its establishment in 2015 … Australia's law enforcement agencies are working around the clock to enforce this strict regime and keep the community safe. We have confidence in them. They are doing an extraordinary job—a hard job—and we thank them for their work. They deserve everybody's support, including those opposite. This government will never give people smugglers a window to resume their exploitative, dangerous operations. We are acting to keep Australia safe. Those opposite choose the low road, egging on people smugglers and dog whistling through their right-wing advertising and media mouthpieces, but this has real-world consequences. More people smugglers mean more grandparents, parents and children being slaughtered at sea. The policy we have is the same policy that was right before, and those opposite voted for what we've got today. We're dealing with it despite the crass political point scoring that comes so naturally to the opposition leader. 18:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland On immigration, this government is lost. Its failure to prepare for the anticipated High Court NZYQ decision last year enabled the rushed and ill-considered release of dangerous criminals from detention straight into the community. With no backup plan, Labor lurches from one disaster to another. Labor issued invalid visas to the released criminals. Labor charged at least 10 of those criminals for breaching visa conditions. Labor were forced to withdraw the charges because the visas were invalid. Labor then reissued new visas to all released detainees, including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. It now appears that potentially another 150 criminal detainees will soon be released into the community without appropriate safeguards. Some detainees maintain that, if they do not cooperate with deportation processes, they cannot be deported and should be released into the community. The revelation from the Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O'Neil, over the weekend that the Labor government has lost control of our borders is a national disgrace. A government's principal role is to provide security for its citizens, and the minister's admission is terrifying and absolutely damning. It appears that the government has relinquished to the courts the power over our borders. Most recently, two boatloads of illegal immigrants made it to our shores, getting past border security, making a mockery of national security. There was the rushed issue of visas to Palestinian refugees from Gaza, some visas taking only an hour or so to issue. What about the cancellation of the visas in transit, then the reissue of most of the visas? This is a hopelessly inept government trying to look good, not do good. ABS statistics for January reveal a staggering 125,410 permanent and long-term arrivals. Accounting for departures, the net growth in permanent and long-term arrivals in January was 55,330, 40 per cent higher than the previous January record intake way back in 2009, putting enormous strain on infrastructure and services. This Labor government does not know how to govern. This Labor government cannot be trusted. 18:32 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland It's just extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary—that the Albanese Labor government, which is presiding over this debacle in terms of immigration in our country, blames us, the opposition, as if we're to blame. It's the Albanese Labor government that is responsible for this immigration debacle, the lack of control of our borders, not the opposition. It's also extraordinary that the Albanese Labor government should say to us, the opposition, 'You shouldn't be talking about this. You'll just make it worse, to talk about it.' Well, sorry; that's the job of an opposition—to keep the government to account. That is our job. That's the job that the people of Australia sent each and every one of us sitting on this side of the chamber here to do. That's the job we'll continue to do every day up to the next federal election—keeping the Albanese Labor government responsible and accountable for its failure in this space. It is an abject policy failure in relation to our immigration policies and controlling our borders. Let's go through the issues. What have we seen? We saw the total mismanagement of the NZYQ case itself, an absolute total mismanagement of that case. Then we saw abject failure to prepare for the outcome of that case. Then we saw the incompetent response when the decision was handed down and how 149 dangerous noncitizen detainees were released into our community without adequate preparation. I've quoted in this place the views of a victim of rape when she heard that her convicted rapist was one of the cohort of 149 released into the Australian community. I've quoted her views, her dismay, with respect to the absolute failure of the Albanese Labor government to manage this policy space competently. What else have we seen? Undetected boat arrivals, which Senator Roberts referred to. This isn't Senator Scarr saying this; there's an article from the ABC on 21 February 2024, 'Backstory of a boat arrival and the bizarre day when 39 foreigners landed in a bush community'. That's the ABC reporting on 21 February 2024. Those opposite in the Albanese Labor government talk about misinformation, but what about this story, 'Backstory of a boat arrival and the bizarre day when 39 foreigners landed in a bush community'? Those opposite would prefer we not speak about it. Well, we will speak about it, and we'll speak about it every day until the next federal election because the Australian people have a right to know. I want to quote from this ABC article: No vessel has been found, creating further embarrassment for authorities. It's believed the boat skipper did what locals refer to as a 'splash and dash', dropping the men off and sailing back to Indonesia undetected. That's from an ABC article. This is what is happening in this country. This is what happens when you get the policy settings wrong. I don't blame the wonderful people of Australian Border Force or the Australian Federal Police. This is of the government's making. They got the policy settings wrong, and now they are reaping what they sowed by getting those policy settings wrong. And there's more. It's never-ending, this nightmare. What do we see? There is an article from Geoff Chambers in the Australian on 16 March that says: Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil has conceded the government has lost control of key aspects of Australia's migration laws … The minister herself concedes the government has lost control. I'm sorry, Minister, but, if the government is unable to control our borders under your leadership, maybe you should resign and give someone else a go. Maybe that's the honourable thing for the minister to do. I quote further from the article: In response to what the government describes as an "unsettled and evolving legal environment", the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Government Solicitor's office have hired almost 50 lawyers in addition to established legal teams. This is what is happening under the Albanese Labor government: absolute, abject failure to confidently manage one of the most important portfolios needed to protect Australian communities and Australian citizens. It's an absolute abject failure and incompetence, and we will talk about it every day until the next election. DOCUMENTS 95 DOCUMENTS Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel 95 Order for the Production of Documents 95 18:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I speak in response to order for the production of documents No. 474. This document deals with a panel supervising Defence's conduct in responding to the Brereton report. In a chain of freedom of information requests, every quarterly report of the panel was released, yet the final report was refused in its entirety. Before the final report was rejected, the last quarterly report was released in Defence Freedom of Information 500/23/24. In section 10 of that quarterly report, on page 6 of the release, the oversight panel foreshadows that their final report would be prepared and provided to Defence in September 2023. The panel met with Defence on 'factual accuracy, clarity, sensitivity and classification' of the report. Defence confirmed there was no information within the report requiring a security classification. The panel then stated: It will therefore be open to you— Defence Minister Marles— … to table that report in the Parliament … While the panel does not specifically mention prejudice in that report, it would appear strange if they had cleared the final report with Defence only for some highly prejudicial information that justifies defying an order of the Senate to make it past the goalkeeper. The final report was then provided to Deputy Prime Minister or Defence Minister Marles on or around 8 November 2023. On 19 February 2024, the Defence department refused freedom of information request 577/23/24 for this final report that the Senate has now ordered the government to table. Under the Freedom of Information Act, an exemption to disclose on the basis of prejudice must be made under section 37. There was no mention of section 37 or prejudice in the freedom of information refusal. The only ground mentioned was section 47C(1), deliberative process. The minister, in response to the Senate order, said there's prejudicial information in this document, yet the freedom of information decision does not mention any prejudicial information. Before we even get to arguing about the merits of the freedom of information refusal, I will point out that there was an unacceptable conflict of interest for the person making that decision. The refusal was signed by Catherine Wallis. Wallis is the director-general of the Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force. The Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel is meant to be reviewing whether the Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force is properly doing their job. The taskforce is internal to Defence, while the panel is meant to be an independent external supervisor. We have the panel creating the final report on whether the taskforce has failed to do its job and then the director-general of the taskforce making the decision to keep this report card a secret. Even worse, in refusing the request, the director-general did not include that position as part of her signature. Wallis had included her full title—Director-General, Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force—just days earlier in a separate FOI decision. In refusing the FOI on this panel report, that title in her signature line had magically disappeared. The avenue to make a complaint about this conflict of interest is messy. The NAAC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, is headed by Paul Brereton. Major-General Paul Brereton, as he was at the time, wrote the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan inquiry report that started this whole episode, of which the oversight panel has been critical. The Deputy Prime Minister and part-time defence minister attended the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and was asked about this final report. When the commission asked Minister Miles if the report we're talking about here would be released before the royal commission was over, the minister answered that he was still thinking about it. There was no mention of prejudicial criminal proceedings, just deliberation. The minister has claimed he's been advised there's prejudicial information in this final report. The panel says it's been cleared with Defence. The FOI refusal makes no mention of prejudice. The minister did not mention prejudice to the royal commission. The question is: from where did this advice appear? It smells like a delaying tactic. To be frank, I don't believe the claim of prejudice is genuine. Yet it may be, and for that reason we've lodged freedom of information requests with the Office of the Special Investigator and with the Department of Defence as to when they advised the minister that this report would be prejudicial. We would expect the minister to provide much more detail on this claim of prejudice before we would even think of accepting it. We remind the minister that a Senate order is not something to be complied with at his leisure. We will pursue this report, which outlines how Defence senior leadership has failed to hold any senior officers accountable while throwing soldiers under the bus. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. PETITIONS 97 PETITIONS Toondah Harbour 97 18:43 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I present to the Senate a petition which is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form, signed by 73,428 people, urging the environment minister to stop the Toondah Harbour development and to not trash Ramsar listed wetlands in Moreton Bay. DOCUMENTS 97 DOCUMENTS Consideration 97 DELEGATION REPORTS 97 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 66th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference 97 18:44 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 66th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, held in Accra, Ghana. Senator CICCONE 281503 I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— The 66th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference (CPC) was held in Accra, Ghana from 1 to 5 October 2023, and was hosted by the Parliament of Ghana and the CPA Ghana Branch. The conference was chaired by the Rt Hon. Alban Bagbin MP, Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana and President of the CPA (2022-2023). Over 600 delegates, observers and officials from member parliaments, representing 102 CPA Branches attended the 66th CPC. The Commonwealth of Australia Branch of the CPA was represented by a parliamentary delegation comprising of Ms Sharon Claydon MP, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Hon. Karen Andrews MP and myself as delegation lead. The theme of the 2023 conference was 'The Commonwealth Charter 10 years on: Values and Principles for Parliaments to Uphold'. Delegates endorsed reports from the three CPA networks: the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP), the Commonwealth Parliamentarians with Disabilities (CPwD) and the CPA Small Branches. On behalf of the delegation, I would also like to thank Her Excellency Berenice Owen-Jones, Australian High Commissioner to Ghana and her staff for providing valuable support and briefing and for the additional visits to Australian funded projects. The High Commissioner provided opportunities for the delegation to meet with local NGOs, groups and individuals to gain an understanding of the culture in Ghana and the some of challenges that people face. I look forward to the next Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference—the 67th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference (CPC) that will be hosted by the CPA New South Wales Branch and the Parliament of New South Wales in November this year. Senator the Hon. Sue Lines President of the Senate DOCUMENTS 97 DOCUMENTS Department of Health and Aged Care 97 Order for the Production of Documents 97 18:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the Future Fit Program. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 97 Order for the Production of Documents 97 18:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the national environmental standard for First Nations engagement and participation in decision-making. 18:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 98 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Community Affairs References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Parliamentary Library Joint Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 98 Membership 98 18:46 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 18:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees — Discharged—Senator Sharma Appointed— Senator Hughes Participating member: Senator Sharma Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees — Discharged—Senator Hughes Appointed— Senator Sharma Participating member: Senator Hughes Finance and Public Administration References Committee — Discharged—Senator Dean Smith Appointed— Senator Sharma Participating member: Senator Dean Smith Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee — Appointed—Senator Payman Parliamentary Library — Joint Standing Committee — Appointed—Senator Payman Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Senator Walsh Question agreed to. BILLS 98 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 98

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023

First Reading 98 18:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 99 18:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Today I am proud to introduce the biggest government crackdown on tax adviser misconduct in Australian history. The government is appalled by the outrageous behaviour by PwC, and the allegations about other firms in the consultancy sector more broadly. Through the misuse of confidential government information, large multinational organisations had a head start on how to sidestep Australia's tax laws. A headstart that put $180 million a year at risk. The Tax Practitioners Board's investigation exposed a tax advisory firm that betrayed trust for personal gain, rather than ensuring tax was fairly paid in Australia. This government has a clear agenda on multinational tax. New laws, currently before the parliament, will tighten multinational tax loopholes, increase transparency and ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax in Australia. We cannot let tax advisor misconduct undo that work, or undermine that agenda. The PwC scandal exposed severe shortcomings in Australia's regulatory frameworks, and that undermines community confidence in our tax system. It showed that it is not only the multinational companies, but also their tax advisers, that need to be held accountable for their actions. This bill will crack down on tax practitioner misconduct and rebuild public confidence in the systems and structures that keep our tax system and capital markets strong. Schedule 1 will expand tax promoter penalty laws to ensure that promoters of tax exploitation schemes face significant consequences for their actions. Penalties will be extended to significant global entities, to ensure that both corporate entities, and non-corporate entities like partnerships, are captured. The maximum penalties for these entities will be increased 100 fold from $7.8 million, to as much as $780 million. We will also make it easier for the Australian Taxation Office to apply the promoter penalty laws, by broadening the scope of important definitions and providing an additional two years for the tax office to gather information and evidence. The message from government is clear: do not promote schemes that sidestep our tax laws. You will be caught, and you will be punished. Schedule 2 is about whistleblower protection. It extends existing tax protections to whistleblowers who disclose information to the Tax Practitioners Board. Those who become aware of misconduct within the tax agent profession should be protected when they bring that information to the appropriate regulator, without fear of recriminations or punishment. This measure responds to a key recommendation of the Independent Review into the TPB and the Tax Agent Services Act 2009. It protects tax whistleblowers from detrimental conduct, such as termination or litigation, in response to a disclosure. And if detriment is suffered, it will allow whistleblowers to seek compensation. Schedule 3 will allow the Tax Practitioners Board to publish more details of its investigations and decisions publicly, and will require them to keep those details published for five years. The schedule will also increase the investigation timeframe from six months to two years, enabling the Tax Practitioners Board to investigate a wider scope of issues raised by a potential breach. Schedule 4 will remove limitations on information sharing that were a barrier to regulators acting in response to PwC's breach of confidence. We know that it took too long for the government to be advised of PwC's actions. On that occasion, the misconduct first occurred in 2014, and was discovered by the ATO in 2017, but it was not until December 2022 that the government was made aware. This isn't acceptable. The measures in Schedule 4 will enable our tax regulators to share protected information with Treasury about confidentiality breaches by those engaging with the Commonwealth. Treasury can then take necessary action to properly and quickly respond to the breach, including by disclosing information to other agencies and certain ministers, in order to deliver an appropriate response. The Australian Taxation Office and Tax Practitioners Board will also be able to share protected information with prescribed professional disciplinary bodies where they suspect actions may constitute a breach of the relevant professional codes or standards. This will ensure all professionals, no matter the framework they are regulated under, will be able to be held to account. These four schedules reflect the government's decisive next step in better regulating tax practitioners, and strengthening accountability within the tax system. They are not our first step, nor will they be our last. Further areas of reform have been foreshadowed. These will follow reviews which have been separately announced, and these will deliver options to government progressively over the next two years. We will soon commence consultation on the first of which, stronger sanction powers for the Tax Practitioners Board. Together, our immediate and longer-term measures will drive good behaviour, deter misconduct, and strengthen the resilience of our regulatory frameworks. This bill also delivers on the Albanese Government's 2023-24 Budget commitment to implement a cap on the use of deductions under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax. This is the first element of the government's response to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Gas Transfer Pricing Review. Schedule 5 will limit the proportion of Petroleum Resource Rent Tax assessable income that can be offset by deductions to 90 per cent. These changes will mean that the offshore liquefied natural gas industry pays more tax sooner, contributing to an expected increase in tax receipts of $2.4 billion over the forward estimates. Under the current law, most LNG projects are not expected to pay any significant PRRT until the 2030s. These reforms address this issue. These sensible changes will deliver a fairer return to the Australian people from the resources they own, provide certainty to industry and investors to allow the sufficient supply of domestic gas, and ensure that Australia remains a reliable trade and investment partner. Consultation on further measures to deliver on the government's Petroleum Resource Rent Tax reforms will follow introduction of this bill. Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. BILLS 100 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023, Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024 100

Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living—Medicare Levy) Bill 2024

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023

Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2024

Assent 100 Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023 100

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023

Report from Committee 100 18:48 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023 100

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Report from Committee 100 18:48 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. BILLS 101 BILLS Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 101

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023

In Committee 101 18:50 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 The committee is considering the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill of 2023. There is a question in front of the chamber, but I note that it is after 6.30 pm, so any divisions required will be held on Wednesday, due to special business of the Senate tomorrow. The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to. Senators may wish now to participate in the committee process or move amendments. 18:51 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I move Greens' amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2468 revised together. The motion was unavailable at the time of publishing This amendment requires ARC grant recipient organisations to report to the ARC on the nature of the employment of researchers who are employed under the grant at the end of the grant period. This amendment also requires the ARC to annually report on the nature of the employment of researchers who are employed by the organisations who are conducting research with ARC grants. Job insecurity and casualisation are, as we know, rampant in universities—and the research sector is not immune. We know that one-third of researchers have been on rolling fixed term contracts for over six years. We can only address job insecurity if there is transparency about the nature of the employment of researchers so that we know the full extent of the problem. It should not be a big ask for ARC grant recipient organisations to report information about their employed researchers, such as whether their contracts are fixed term or ongoing, the duration of contracts, the gender and seniority of employees, whether employees are casually employed or whether they are part-time or full-time. They should already have this information, so it's not going to put an extra burden on them. As one of the biggest funders of research, the ARC must play a role in increasing transparency regarding the job security of researchers. This amendment will ensure that this happens in ARC funded research. I want to thank the National Tertiary Education Union as well as the networks of casualised employees at universities for the work that they have done towards achieving job security, getting rid of casualisation and improving transparency in university employment. I also want to thank the government for their engagement on this amendment and for supporting it. 18:54 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will be supporting this amendment. We see our research community flourish, and part of that is improving the attractiveness of academic research roles. The reporting requirements in Senator Faruqi's amendment will help underline that, so it is something the government will support. Question agreed to. 18:55 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I move amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 2402 together: (1) Schedule 3, item 6, page 35 (after line 12), after subsection 59(2), insert: (2A) If the Minister makes such a request, the Minister must prepare a written statement setting out: (a) the Minister's specific concerns with the rules that the Board gave to the Minister for approval; and (b) details of the changes to the rules, if any, that the Minister requested. (2B) The statement must be tabled in each House of the Parliament with the rules to which the statement relates. Note: As approved rules are a legislative instrument, they are tabled in each House of the Parliament under section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003. (2) Schedule 3, item 6, page 35 (after line 26), after subsection 60(3), insert: (3A) If the Minister makes such a request, the Minister must prepare a written statement setting out: (a) the Minister's specific concerns with the proposed variation that the Board gave to the Minister for approval; and (b) details of the changes to the proposed variation, if any, that the Minister requested. (3B) The statement must be tabled in each House of the Parliament with the variation to which the statement relates. Note: As approved variations are a legislative instrument, they are tabled in each House of the Parliament under section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003. (3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 40 (before line 18), before paragraph 65A(d), insert: (cb) include copies of any written statements prepared under subsections 59(2A) and 60(3A) in that period; and These amendments require the minister to table a statement of their specific concerns in any requested changes to ARC funding rules that are prepared by the board. This amendment also requires the ARC to include copies of these statements in its annual reports as well. The bill provides that the board prepares the funding rules for ARC grants and that the ARC board must comply with any written request from the minister to provide revised rules to take account of the minister's specific concerns. This amendment really is a very basic transparency measure that is not currently in place to make sure that the minister's written request for revisions and funding rules is made public. Again, this is quite a basic, bare minimum expectation. Especially given the history of political interference in ARC funding decisions, the research community and the public deserve to know what revisions are that ministers are directing to ARC funding rules. This amendment would allow public scrutiny, allow public oversight, and would hopefully deter any ministerial interference that could occur in the setting of ARC funding rules. 18:56 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will not be supporting this amendment. The bill introduces a very high level of transparency around the operation of the ARC and funding programs, including provisions which make the funding rules themselves a disallowable instrument, subject to the scrutiny of parliament. It is appropriate that in formulating these funding rules the minister of the day be able to work with the board at the drafting stage to give and receive full and frank advice. The resulting guidelines may then be considered by the parliament in the context of a disallowance examination. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question before the committee is that the amendments moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to. A division is required and will occur Wednesday. 18:57 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I move Greens' amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2396: (1) Schedule 3, item 6, page 35 (line 16), at the end of subsection 59(3), add ", but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the rules". (2) Schedule 3, item 6, page 35 (line 31), at the end of subsection 60(4), add ", but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the variation". The current situation for ARC funding rules, also known as grant guidelines, is that they are tabled in parliament but are not disallowable. The Parliamentary Library informs me this has been the situation since at least 2006 and perhaps even earlier. The government's bill seeks to change that to make funding rules disallowable. Many researchers and universities have raised significant concerns with me that this introduces a new form of political interference which has not been seen in the past and risks significant delays to the commencement of entire research teams. The ARC review which this government is implementing with this legislation did not make any recommendations to make funding rules disallowable. In fact, the final report did not even mention the word 'disallowable' once. My amendment would retain the current situation by making funding rules should be tabled in parliament, allowing for public scrutiny, while avoiding delays of the disallowance processes for researchers waiting for their grant applications. 18:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will not be supporting this amendment. Making funding rules disallowable is a key transparency mechanism in this bill. It ensures that funding rules are subject to the scrutiny of the parliament. The ARC board will prepare funding rules which will be issued in a manner which takes into account the disallowance processes and time frames so that researchers have certainty as a result. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 The question before the committee is that the amendments moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to. A division is required and will occur on Wednesday. 19:00 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2413: (1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 7 (line 7), omit "up to 5", substitute "up to 7". (2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 8 (line 21), omit paragraph 11(c), substitute: (c) not fewer than 5, and not more than 7, other members. (3) Schedule 2, item 12, page 15 (lines 25 to 29), omit subsections 30(1) and (1A), substitute: (1) The Minister may establish committees to assist the Board to determine priorities, strategies and policies for the ARC. (4) Schedule 2, item 19, page 17 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item, substitute: 19 Section 33C Repeal the section, substitute: 33C CEO to attend meetings and provide advice or assistance (1) The CEO is to attend each meeting of the Board. (2) The CEO: (a) may provide any reasonable advice or assistance requested by the Chair for the purposes of the performance of the Board's functions; but (b) must not take part in any decision of the Board under the following: (i) subsection 34(2); (ii) subsection 34(3); (iii) subsection 34(4); (iv) subsection 38(1); (v) subsection 38(2); (vi) section 40A; (vii) subsection 40B(1). Professor Mary O'Kane AC and her team have done great work as part of the Universities Accord process. I thank and commend her for it. The final report released on the weekend contains 47 recommendations that together have the capacity to transform tertiary education in Australia. I urge the government to accept them all and to implement them as a matter of urgency—in particular the measures relating to student safety, debt and income support. In a cost-of-living crisis these measures are urgently needed. Earlier today I met with the Australian Medical Students Association, and they relayed just how important it is that we provide support to students through placements and through their university years so they can actually serve our communities in all of these roles that we talk so much about desperately needing. Canberra is a university town and a research powerhouse, and I want to see that flourish. Earlier we heard some debate about research investment and funding, and we heard the coalition try to blame Labor for this going backwards. But the fact remains that R&D funding as a percentage of GDP has been falling for 14 years in Australia. For 14 years it has been on a downward trajectory. Clearly this is something that needs to be turned around and turned around quickly. Just to quote a few things from the accord: While Australian universities invest significantly in research, national R&D expenditure overall is low for an advanced economy and our rankings on innovation indices are poor. Securing Australia's high-quality research bedrock will require significant growth of Australia's R&D system. This growth cannot be achieved without a significant increase in Australia's expenditure on R&D as a proportion of GDP. The ARC is clearly a critical part of Australia's research ecosystem, and this bill will significantly strengthen and safeguard that role. It gives effect to the terrific work led by Professor Margaret Sheil AO, and, critically, it takes away a power too often misused for the minister to intervene and stop research grants for purely politically ideological grounds. We've seen this happen in the past, and this political interference erodes trust and has no place in the kind of future we want to build in this country. We have to make sure that it can't happen again, and that's why I look forward to supporting this bill. I'd like to thank Minister Clare's office for their engagement with me the over the amendments I'm seeking to this bill. The amendments I moved on sheet 2413 increase the number of board members and clarify the CEO's role as part of the board. I'll leave it there for now. 19:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Pocock, for your constructive engagement on this bill. The government will support Senator Pocock's amendments concerning increasing the size of the board. They address a suggestion from the Senate committee inquiry and stakeholder feedback. A modest increase to the size of the board will allow for even more diversity and sector representation whilst maintaining a size conducive to good governance. The government is unable to support the balance of the amendments, which would amend elements of the bill drawn from the independent report. In that context, I would ask that (1) and (2) be put separately from (3) and (4) please. 19:04 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens will be supporting Senator Pocock's amendments. In fact, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2413, which increase the board size from five-to-seven members to seven-to-nine members, are actually the same amendments as the Greens ones on sheet 2440, which I won't be moving today. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 The question before the chair, and it will be split, is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2413 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The second question is that amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 2413 be agreed to. Question negatived. 19:06 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I ask that you please note my support for the amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Your support for the amendments is noted. 19:06 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—I ask that you note the Greens support as well. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Faruqi, it will be noted that the Greens did support amendments (3) and (4), but they are negated. 19:06 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to withdraw my amendments on sheets 2423 and 2424. Leave granted. 19:07 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move my amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2476. The amendment s w ere unavailable at the time of publishing. 19:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will support these amendments. I thank Senator Pocock again for his engagement, and I also note the engagement by the Greens in the additional comments to the Senate committee report. It is important that the minister be able to specify projects as designated research programs to help build Australia's research capability, but it is also important that the power be protected as much as possible from potential misuse in the future. The revised definition proposed by Senator Pocock adds to the existing protections requiring that the relevant program be nationally significant and requiring that the minister of the day be satisfied that the program will help build research capability. 19:08 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales As I said earlier in my second reading contribution, this bill gives the minister power to specify designated research programs in regulations, under which funding for individual research projects is decided solely by the minister and not by the ARC board. This risks the minister taking sole decision-making power over a wide range of funding decisions on individual grants. These concerns have been raised with me by many in the research community, and that's why the Greens did move an amendment that an act of parliament should be required for the minister to take the significant steps of obtaining sole decision-making power over research funding. Nevertheless, that amendment did not get up. This amendment is a minor improvement on the bill because it provides slightly more clarity to the meaning of designated research programs, and the Greens will not stand in the way of this amendment. Question agreed to. 19:09 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move my amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2474. The amendment s w ere unavailable at the time of publishing. These give effect to Science and Technology Australia's very meritorious recommendation to impose time limits requiring the research funding agency to notify successful applicants within 21 days of grant approval. 19:09 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will be supporting these amendments. 19:10 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales As far as I understand, these amendments require the board to notify organisations of any variations to the ARC funding agreements, which really only improves communications to grant recipients, so the Greens will support these amendments. Question agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 We've considered all the amendments on this bill. Because divisions have been called on two occasions, the bill cannot proceed until those votes are taken. I now shall report to the Senate. Progress reported. Ordered that the committee have leave to sit again on the next day of sitting. National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 105

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 105 19:11 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania On behalf of the opposition, I rise to make a short contribution this evening on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023. Whilst the coalition will ultimately support this bill, we will be moving an amendment in the committee stage of consideration of the bill to omit part 2 of schedule 1 from this bill. Part 2 of schedule 1 makes changes to the special assessment process to specific classes of serious offences and removes the existing restrictions that apply to those people on applying under the Redress Scheme from jail. The National Redress Scheme, established under the former coalition government, continues to provide support to those who have suffered from institutionalised child sexual abuse. The scheme recognises the suffering survivors have experienced and accepts that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for this abuse. The scheme is the most significant step in going part of the way to addressing the wrongs of the past and providing a just response to survivors. We also recognise that it's an important step and has been an important step for many towards healing. The scheme also ensures governments and institutions take steps to safeguard against these crimes ever being repeated in the future. It is intended to provide a survivor with the means to access a sense of justice through financial redress and other restorative supports. It is intended to be faster, simpler and less distressing for survivors and to provide governments and institutions with the means to deliver swift justice to those survivors. When the scheme was established under the former coalition government, there were some limitations for people who had committed the most serious of crimes. For example, if a person is convicted of an offence which receives a custodial sentence of five years or more in jail, the operator, as defined under the act, may determine that the person is entitled to redress if providing redress to the person would not bring the scheme into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in the scheme. When making this determination at present, the operator takes into account any relevant information, such as advice given by the relevant attorney-general and the nature of the offence for which that person has received the custodial sentence of five years or more. The coalition does not see any need to change this current arrangement. Changes to review processes to allow new information to be provided as part of a request for review of a determination and consideration by independent decision-makers should be as part of the review process. The bill that we're debating this evening changes eligibility for prisoners by removing the restriction on people making an application for redress from jail. The bill seeks to reduce unnecessary delays in the progression of applications by making changes to the process for people with serious convictions applying for redress, thus reducing the number of people required to go through the special assessment process. The changes aim to reduce the incidence of applications that undergo special assessment, focusing only on those sentenced to five years or more in jail for offences such as unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism, or in cases where there is a risk to the scheme's integrity. The bill makes changes to the scheme's protected information framework by introducing additional authorisations for disclosure of protected information. The bill allows finalised applications for redress to be reassessed when an institution identified in the application has subsequently joined the scheme or been listed under funder of last resort arrangements. Finally, the bill implements technical amendments to align funder of last resort rounding provisions to other areas of the redress act, addressing drafting inconsistencies within the funder of last resort provisions and to promote consistency in drafting. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 shows this government's tendency to be lenient on crime by benefiting, or proposing to benefit, individuals with serious criminal convictions by, essentially, offering a fast-tracked redress process. Under this bill those who receive a jail sentence of five years or more would be eligible to apply for redress without having to go through the existing special assessment process. Under this bill, only those sentenced to five years or more for offences such as unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism, or cases where it's deemed that the scheme's integrity would be questioned—and we do not for a moment doubt that—would have to go through the special assessment process. But, outside of those crimes, any other individuals receiving a jail sentence of five years or more would be eligible to apply for redress without having to go through the existing special assessment arrangement. We have a proposal now from the government to change this assessment process for people who have been jailed for more than five years outside of those crimes that I mentioned. Let's be frank: in this country, to be jailed for more than five years means that, by definition, we are talking about some very serious crimes. But, in effect, we are concerned that the government is accepting that, for a certain class of crimes, we shouldn't be changing that process—that certain class of crimes here being unlawful killings, sexual offences and terrorism. We understand the need to do that but, again, the concern is whether or not this has been consistently applied across the board. On the one hand the government is accepting that it is important for the special assessment process to be maintained for the integrity of the scheme and for common decency, but for other classes of crimes we're happy to let open the doors for everybody else. So, as I foreshadowed in making my contribution this evening on behalf of the shadow minister and on behalf of the opposition, the coalition will ultimately be supporting this bill in its passage through the Senate, but we will move amendments in the committee of the whole stage to deal with some of the issues that I have outlined this evening, particularly an amendment to omit part 2 of schedule 1 from the bill. 19:18 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens will support the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023, but I indicate that we will be seeking to move a series of amendments to the bill and that we will oppose the amendment that's proposed by the opposition. The National Redress Scheme was established almost six years ago, in 2018. It came about following one of the most extraordinary cases of public information sharing, public education and trauma informed historical review. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, chaired by Commissioner McClellan, is a case study in how we can do things right. After decades and decades and decades of not listening to survivors of abuse and after decades and decades of prioritising the institutions over the survivors and the individuals who were abused and broken by those institutions, the royal commission showed how as a nation we could show empathy, compassion and understanding, and how finally we could put the interests of those individuals ahead of the interests of the powerful institutions that all too often abuse them—powerful institutions like the Catholic Church, the Scouts, the Anglican Church and institutions run at the state and territory level. I thought we had finally changed politics so that even the worst tendencies of this place, the worst tendencies of partisan politics, would be put to one side and that, finally, we would listen to the stories of survivors, listen to the truth of the survivors and respect them. We got the 2018 National Redress Scheme and there were always concerns about it. It remains a very secretive scheme. Many survivors say they don't know why they received often very modest compensation payments out of it. The reasons are not articulated for them. The process can be incredibly long. Indeed, some institutions are still resisting signing on and being part of the scheme, despite us knowing that they were responsible for the abuse of significant numbers of children. But with all those faults, I thought our politics had improved. And part of that has been the ongoing review of the Redress Scheme. I acknowledge the work of all members on the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme and the work of the chair. Indeed, from my observation of the members of that committee, no matter their political party, they have been survivor focused, and they have been seeking to shine some transparency on the Redress Scheme. But there have been these ongoing concerns with how it operates, and one of those concerns is the fact that the bill effectively excludes any person who is in jail or any person who has been the subject of a serious criminal conviction from access to the scheme, unless exceptional circumstances are identified. A serious criminal conviction is serving a sentence of five years or more. Let's remember who this scheme is meant to serve—individuals who were taken from their families when they were infants at a very young age. Many of them have suffered some of the most horrific abuse you could imagine at the hands of an institution or institutions such that it is hard to comprehend how somebody gets their life back together again after that. Tragically, many didn't. For many survivors, their lives spiralled out of control after the appalling abuse that they suffered. Some went down the path of addiction, while many fell into the juvenile justice system and graduated into the adult criminal justice system. Through no fault of their own but through the damage that was caused to them by the abusing institution, their lives have been off-track for decades. Many have served repeated stints in jail. Of course, not all sufferers of abuse had that pathway. Some of them managed to keep their lives on track. Some of them managed, through a strength that I can't comprehend, to succeed in work, education, in holding their families together, and we should celebrate those extraordinary achievements of the survivors who could do that. But let's also acknowledge the pathway that many others travelled down. It is a dark and hard pathway. At its start and at its cause is the abuse that happened to them. There has now been a review of the redress act. That review finally acknowledges that the reason why many of the survivors and victims have been excluded is because of this provision that says that 'if you have been convicted and sentenced to five or more years in jail, you are excluded'. The review said that provision is cutting out many survivors who absolutely need the support, who absolutely deserve the support and whose incarceration has, at its core, the abuse they suffered. It is effectively punishing them twice, and the review made this clear. Indeed, the review report noted that those restrictions constitute a significant bar, discouraging applicants and deterring other potentially eligible applicants from applying. It recommended, effectively, removing this exemption except in cases of unlawful killing, a sexual offence, a terrorism offence or related offences, leaving the exceptional circumstances assessment for that core of the most extreme offences. As I said, I thought we had moved on as a nation. I thought we had understood the pathway that survivors had come through. And yet, to its eternal shame, the coalition is now seeking to move an amendment to this bill to retain that double punishment of survivors, reaching into their playbook of attacking the government or any other political party that shows even a shred of compassion to somebody who suffered institutional abuse and then incarceration. They are now seeking to weaponise this legislation against survivors of abuse, and they absolutely know the pathway of many of these survivors of abuse that happened. They know about the abuse that those people suffered at an institutional level. They know how that impacted those people and often drove them down that pathway to juvenile detention and then into adult prison. In fact, that pathway through prison is part of the pain and the suffering they had from their childhood abuse at the hands of an institution that should have kept them safe. The coalition now come into this chamber and want to protect the institutions from those claims again. The coalition come into this chamber and want to again punish those survivors and, in the lowest politics you can imagine, beat up on the government about this because the government is showing a shred of compassion. It's the vilest politics you can imagine coming from the coalition here. We should be contemptuous of their position. How could they not have listened to the royal commission? How could the coalition be seeking to weaponise the abuse suffered by survivors of these institutions, seeking to drag it into their ugly gutter politics and weaponise it against the government? How low can the coalition go? The answer is that we're getting a sense tonight with them weaponising this against survivors of institutional abuse and trying to harm the government that is showing a shred of compassion here. I thought this country had grown a little with the royal commission, but the coalition haven't .The coalition remain in that vile position of supporting the institutions—because that's what they're doing here. They're supporting the institutions and saying the institutions that abuse these children shouldn't have to pay, because the children went through a pathway of going into the criminal justice system. The coalition here are trying to ensure that the Catholic Church keeps the money—the modest amount of redress that they'd have to pay to children that they abused or let be abused in their care. They're saying that state and territory governments can keep the money and don't have to pay survivors modest compensation. They want to protect state and territory government institutions and literally take the money away from survivors of institutional abuse. They want to protect the Scouts, the Girl Guides and the Anglican church. They're again putting all those institutions ahead of survivors of abuse. It is contemptible politics. It should be beyond the shame of any politician, let alone a political party that pretends that it could form government at some point. I call upon the coalition to withdraw their amendment, to actually have a small shred of public shame in what they do and not weaponise this bill against a government that's actually trying, after six years in this space, to do something decent for survivors of institutional abuse. There are two amendments to this bill that the Greens will be pressing for. The first is to ensure that a class of women who were abused as children can get fair access to compensation under the redress scheme. We heard this evidence in the redress committee. I want to thank CLAN for their advocacy in this space and Leonie Sheedy for her advocacy for these women who, when they were taken, often as state wards, were often repeatedly abused by the medical profession for so-called virginity testing. Virginity testing has now been criminalised in other countries such as the United Kingdom because it's seen to be inherently abusive of women. I'll read briefly from one of the submissions we got from a state ward about this issue. She said: 'I was made a state ward in October 1966. I'd been charged with truancy. I don't deny missing a lot of school due to my childhood circumstances, but effectively I was institutionalised for being poor. I was a frightened little girl removed from my family. It was traumatising being sent to a government home. I was extremely afraid being transported to a city I'd never been to before. Still, to this day, I have trouble sleeping, with recurring nightmares, and feel the trauma of that time. Shortly after arriving at this government girls' home, I was sent to a room upstairs where two strangers—a man and woman—were waiting. The man asked me a lot of questions. The lady didn't speak. I was just a little girl with no idea what was happening. I was very scared and confused.' I won't read on about what happened to her after that in the virginity testing. This appalling medical abuse, this trauma and violence against this young girl that happened repeatedly. But then she says this: 'I was encouraged to apply for redress when I contacted CLAN in 2021, and I lodged my application in May 2022. All members of CLAN, particularly Leonie Sheedy, have been extremely supportive, with their help and understanding of the trauma I suffered as a little girl. 'My application has been refused on the grounds my state sanctioned rape has been considered a medical examination. I feel totally devastated and discriminated against. Other women in the same situation as I was placed have been granted redress. It's very distressing for me. I feel ripped apart in the same way I felt when I was a little girl taken from my mother a few short years after my father committed suicide in March 1959. The Labor government has always respected rights and equality for all Australians, without discrimination. I can't help but feel re-traumatised and assaulted a second time.' That's the now-older woman's story about the abuse she suffered. We have an amendment that will make it clear that no future redress application which relates to the abuse that happened in virginity testing can be refused because it says, 'to avoid doubt, sexual abuse includes the examination of female genitalia, with or without consent, for the purpose or purported purpose of determining virginity'. We'd ask all parties in the chamber to support that, to listen to the voices—and that's not an isolated case—of these woman who are now in their 60s and 70s who have finally come forward and sought redress. Many of them have been refused for this reason. It shouldn't happen again. I'll speak to another amendment we have in the course of the committee debate, but, again, I'd urge all parties to remember the royal commission. (Time expired) 19:33 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia That's an interesting interpretation by Senator Shoebridge of the amendment the coalition is proposing. I'll correct the record. The National Redress Scheme was started under the coalition government in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The redress scheme recognises the trauma and injustices survivors have experienced as children in Australian institutions. It is a significant step in addressing wrongs of the past. The most recent available data tells us that at June 2023 more than 1,500 institutions were found to be responsible for abuse, nearly 11,000 people had applied to the scheme for redress and over 3,500 applicants were found to be eligible. Payments to approved applicants ranged from $10,000 to $150,000. This bill amends the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018—the Redress Act. It amends existing provisions and introduces new provisions. While the coalition will ultimately support this bill, we do seek amendments. The Redress Act was brought in under a coalition government and it exists to support adults who, as children, were abused in institutional care. A participant in the scheme, locked up for stealing an $8-dollar pair of jeans, said acknowledgment that he was sexually abused by the very people who were supposed to protect him was important to him. As a victim-survivor, he encouraged people to come forward. In his words: What I'd say to people who feel ashamed and scared, come forward and talk. Talk to someone and go through the Scheme. Get actual recognition about what happened to you. Nothing to be ashamed about, just come forward, and talk. Another survivor, who spent four years in Westbrook children's home in Toowoomba and was regularly flogged and sexually abused by staff, wanted 'recognition and justice for the suffering endured at the hands of the state', and believed redress could do this. This scheme is about practical, meaningful, commonsense support provided by way of monetary compensation, counselling and psychological care. It also has the option of a direct personal response from responsible institutions that validate the individuals' experience. It also requires the organisations who ran the institutions to take responsibility for previous wrongdoings and contribute to the scheme in the way the survivors deem valuable to them. That is the appropriate response. I would also like to acknowledge the Redress Support Services and the work that they do in supporting applicants to access the scheme, especially those in my home state of South Australia. In South Australia, these organisations and their committed workers include Nunkuwarrin Yunti, the Victim Support Service, the South Australian Council on Intellectual Disability and Relationships Australia South Australia. These services are free, independent and offer someone to talk to, someone to help fill out forms and someone to speak to the National Redress Scheme on behalf of applicants. Specialist support services are available for people living with disability, people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, carers and former child migrants. When the redress scheme was first set up by the coalition government in 2018, it was with the intention that the scheme evolve. So it was, in June 2020, the then Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Anne Ruston, my state colleague, announced an independent review. The review's task was to identify the gaps and areas where the scheme could be made stronger and ensure fairness for survivors. It contained 38 recommendations to improve survivor participation and to enhance the operation of the scheme. Twenty-five of the recommendations were immediately prioritised in the former coalition government's response in late 2021. In the 2021-22 budget, more than $80 million over four years was allocated to progress action on these recommendations. The coalition made efforts to balance the review recommendations with potential impacts on institutions participating in the scheme. An independent review is the way to approach any change to such an important scheme. Where is that process that informs the changes before us today? As a Liberal senator for South Australia, I am particularly proud that it was the former South Australian Liberal government, led by former premier Steven Marshall, who signed up my state to the National Redress Scheme. Some truth-telling: I note that the previous South Australia Labor government refused to sign up to the National Redress Scheme—a shameful act of partisan politics. This Labor government claim the moral high ground on so many social and community issues, but they have no conviction. They overpromise and underdeliver. This bill demonstrates Labor's leniency on crime, giving those with serious criminal convictions access to the fast-track redress process. The scheme's changes mean those who have committed the following serious crimes can apply through the fast-track process rather than through the special assessment process. I'll read them out. This means: extortion; distributing, accessing and possessing child abuse material; kidnapping; robbery; armed robbery; burglary and aggravated burglary; home invasion and aggravated home invasion; carjacking and aggravated carjacking; and arson—very serious crimes with real people who are victims-survivors. With this bill and its changes to the special assessment process, the Labor government is inadvertently choosing to narrow their definition of what constitutes a serious crime to those who have committed terrorism, unlawful killing and sexual offences. There is no legitimacy in this leniency—none. It also allows those in jail to apply. At this time, that requires permission from the relevant Commonwealth minister. While the coalition will ultimately support this bill, we will seek an amendment to propose changes to the special assessment process that proposes removal of restrictions that apply for people applying in jail. The scheme in its current form sets out that, if a person is convicted of an offence and receives the custodial sentence of five years or more in jail, the operator as defined under the act may determine that the person is entitled to redress. The operator is able to consider the application, providing that redress to the person would not bring the scheme into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in the scheme. The coalition remains of the view that there is no need to change the current arrangement of a special assessment process. It strikes the right balance. They can still claim. It does not prevent them from getting paid, as the Australian Greens have said; it is about not changing what is currently done. The Albanese government needs to be upfront with Australians and explain the process it used to inform these changes. Who was consulted? Why is this change necessary? And what are the potential unintended consequences? One of the commonsense measures in this legislation that comes directly from the second-year review introduces a new reassessment process to address potential disadvantages faced by survivors when an institution joins the scheme after their application progresses. When in government, the coalition government committed to considering the recommendation in consultation with state and territory governments, survivors, institutions and other stakeholders. Another commonsense measure in this legislation aims to address drafting inconsistency with the original funder of last resort provisions and the Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Act 2021, which extended funder of last resort arrangements in the redress act. What this means is that these changes will ensure that a person's redress payment and an institution's redress liability are appropriately calculated where the same institution is responsible under more than one funder of last resort category. This legislation also provides that, if the amount worked out is not a whole number of cents, the number should be rounded up to the next whole number of cents. This would be in line with other rounding provisions in the act and within the rules. Another commonsense measure aims to allow applicants to submit further information when requesting a review of a decision. The current redress act does not allow for this. The two-year review under the coalition government found that this position limits procedural fairness and, along with the risk of a redress offer being reduced, deters survivors from requesting a review. This offers a 'no worse' provision. They won't be any worse off. That makes sense. It is addressing a procedural fairness. Yes, under the act as it is now, those who are convicted of a serious crime who are also victims are entitled to access the scheme. But, rightly, there are additional barriers and safeguards in place to ensure its integrity through the special assessment process. How is it responsible, how is it sensible, and how is it in keeping with the intent of the scheme, which is in recognising the hurt, pain and trauma of the same type of abuse? It isn't. It does not make sense. We do not know if this is an oversight in the drafting of this bill or an error on behalf of the minister. But it should be fixed. I call on the government to support the opposition's proposed amendment to the bill, which will result in keeping the special assessment process as it currently is. 19:44 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023. This bill amends the process of the scheme, which was first established in 2018 following the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abus and is currently scheduled to be in place for 10 years. The amendments contained in this bill implement certain recommendations from the final report of the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme. This scheme provides three elements of redress for eligible applicants. They are payment of $150,000, access to counselling and psychological services, and the option to receive a direct, personal response from a responsible institution. This scheme is so important. As we know, far too many people experience trauma at the hands of state institutions. This scheme is, frankly, the least the government can do to try to address the hurt and the long-lasting effects of child sexual abuse. However, we know that this scheme is too hard to access. There are so many hoops that participants have to jump through, and many organisations that were responsible for this abuse have not signed up to the scheme, meaning justice is, in fact, out of reach for far too many victims. I know personally how hard this scheme is, as I have loved ones who have had to go through this process and, in fact, are still going through this process. The trauma of having to relive and explain what you were subjected to cannot be overstated. It is important to acknowledge that many of the people who are victim-survivors and are trying to access this scheme were also part of the stolen generations of this country. We need to acknowledge the complex trauma that these people carry with them and the impacts of intergenerational trauma. Despite what some people in this place might think and, in fact, what they do say, intergenerational trauma is real, and the impacts of colonisation continue to be felt in First Nations communities across Australia. The issues in this scheme only exacerbate the inherent distrust that many First Nations people feel towards government institutions. Further, there are many different redress schemes. This one and various stolen generation redress schemes are in every jurisdiction but Western Australia, my home state, and Queensland. There is overlap in a number of administrative processes that people must follow, meaning it sometimes takes years to get a result. In WA and Queensland, for members of the stolen generation, this scheme may be all they have access to for some type of justice. I have been told directly by survivors of the stolen generation that the Western Australian government is waiting for them to die. It is waiting for them to die out. The fewer survivors that are left there, the less money the government will have to pay. This is unacceptable. It is an absolute disgrace. The WA and Queensland governments need to get their act together and implement a redress scheme for survivors of the stolen generation, and we need a national scheme for those who were taken across state lines or who, for whatever reason, were not able to participate in those schemes that were run in the past. Once again I stand in this place and say that this is the absolute, bare minimum. It is the least that this government could do. No amount of money will ever account for the loss of family, the loss of connection, the loss of culture and the loss of community. Entire families were wiped out by this policy. Languages and sacred knowledge have been lost. In some places we can never get that back. That is why we fight so hard to protect what we have left. If governments really want to make up for what they did during those times, they will stop continuing to lock our kids up, they will stop destroying our sacred sites, they will invest in our First Nations communities, and they will let First Nations people be at the core of those solutions for the problems that governments have created as legacy pieces for us. So, yes, we need this Redress Scheme for victims-survivors of institutionalised child sexual abuse, and this is an important step, but we also could be doing a whole lot more. 19:50 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 will benefit survivors and contribute to improving the National Redress Scheme for institutional child sexual abuse for the remaining five years of its life. Consistent with the government's policy of ongoing improvement of the scheme, it will enhance the accessibility of survivors to redress. It will give effect to the government's final response to the legislative second-year review of the scheme. The formal response was provided by the government in May 2023. The final response is provided for in this bill. In summary, the review made 38 recommendations identifying a number of administrative, policy and operational matters that need improvement to ensure that the scheme meets its statutory obligations, facilitates greater accessibility, supports its survivors and provides a more trauma informed experience that is responsive to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. The second-year review of the scheme commenced on 1 July 2020 and was conducted between then and March 2021. The final report was provided to the Minister for Families and Social Services at the end of March 2021. The former government implemented five recommendations in the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Act 2021. These included recommendation 3.6, developing a simplified application and removing the requirement for a statutory declaration; recommendation 4.2, providing an advanced payment of $10,000 to eligible applicants born before 1944 or 1964 for those applicants identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or those with a terminal illness; recommendation 4.4, payment by instalments; recommendation 4.5, calculation of the indexation of prior payments at the date an application is submitted; and recommendation 5.2, updating funder of last resort provisions, where an institution is defunct and no parent institution can be found or where an institution named in an application is assessed as not having the financial means to join but is willing to do so. The measures in the bill build on both legislative and non-legislative steps taken to date in response to the review, but they effect the response to the remaining recommendations arising from the review that require further development and consultation to implement. The government is committed to the continual improvement of the scheme to achieve this objective. The bill will make the following amendments to the act. It will allow redress applicants to provide additional information with their request for review of a decision and implement a limited no-worse-off provision, limited with regard to the guiding principles of the scheme, where the information provided is not false or misleading. It will improve the process for applicants with serious criminal convictions so that the special assessment process is required only for a person convicted of unlawful killing, terrorism or sexual offences and exceptional circumstances where appropriate. It will allow incarcerated survivors to apply for redress, expand the protected information provisions to enable additional circumstances where protected information may be disclosed, implement technical amendments to the funder-of-last-resort provisions to correct technical drafting errors and establish a process to give applicants the option of having their application reassessed if it was finalised with one or more relevant institutions not participating and where that institution subsequently joins the scheme or government agrees to act as funder of last resort. The amendments to the protected information provisions of the redress act are in response to recommendation 3.6 of the second-year review, the interest of transparency for survivors and in response to direct requests from institutions. These are all contained in part 3 of the bill and insert new sections 95B and 96A and make consequential amendments. The bill, as I've said, builds on action already undertaken in response to the review and seeks to make further legislative changes. Currently, all applicants who are jailed must demonstrate exceptional circumstances in order to apply, as I've already indicated, and exceptional circumstances usually include that they will still be in jail at the scheme's sunset. The restriction on applying from jail disproportionately impacts First Nations applicants in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and will provide immediate access to those survivors. The changes this bill has brought to parliament are measured and in recognition of the lifelong impacts of child sexual abuse. They maintain public confidence and integrity in the legislation, which has been operating for over five years now. The second-year review, as I've touched upon, recommended that the policy and guidelines regarding what is referred to as 'state sanctioned rape' or 'virginity testing' be reviewed to provide greater clarity to independent decision-makers when considering these applications. In response, the scheme sought the advice of medical ethicists and updated the guidance material to provide greater clarity for independent decision-makers. I acknowledge the calls from advocates and survivors to instruct independent decision-makers about how to assess applicants that disclose this type of abuse or to include a definition to determine whether it is relevant abuse for the scheme. The amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge goes further than what was recommended and will not be accepted by the government. I note that this will require the full agreement of all states and territories and thorough consultation with participating institutions. To do so would undermine the independence of the scheme and the confidence in the scheme of states, territories and institutions. I also acknowledge the significant hurt caused by institutions pursuing permanent stays prior to the High Court's decision in GLJ late last year. The government will not be supporting the amendment to open up deeds of release for an eligible group of survivors, as it will significantly shift the basis on which institutions join the scheme. The royal commission recommended that accepting a payment under the scheme would require an applicant to release the institution from any further liability. As the scheme operates on a responsible-entity-pays basis, the risk of institutions leaving the scheme is simply too great. Without their continued voluntary participation, the scheme cannot continue to operate and enable survivors to access redress. As to the first amendment from Senator Shoebridge, accepting the recommendation would require the full agreement of states, territories and participating institutions. We are not going to delay the passage of this important bill. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 112 ADJOURNMENT Taxation 112 20:00 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Everyone gets a tax cut. The plan is clear and simple. The Albanese government's tax reform plan is significant and timely. It's much-needed tax reform for 2024 as Australians deal with the cost-of-living pressures. This means every Australian taxpayer will now get a tax cut regardless of income scale, and 84 per cent of taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut and more support than they would have received under those opposite. It doesn't matter where you live in Tasmania: from Scottsdale to Dunalley, Devonport to Hobart, Launceston to Bicheno, you will get a tax cut. It means teachers, nurses, truck drivers and tradies will get a tax cut. And it will be a bigger tax cut. This reform is about supporting working Australians, the people who keep our communities and our economy ticking over. The Albanese government wants people to be able to provide for their families and to get ahead. We are a government getting on with the job. There is no time to stall when people are doing it tough. You have to act, and these are decisive reforms that will serve the Australian people and our communities. Middle Australia and aspirational Australians go together. They work hard, like every Australian, to give their kids a better chance to succeed in life. The best version of our country is one that provides more opportunities for more people so that there's reward for effort right up and down the economic scale. In every suburb, in every town and in every part of our country, these tax cuts will help people. They will help families. This significant tax reform is better for bracket creep, better for women and better for young people. It's about fairness, and the Australian Labor Party will always stand up for fairness. It will not burden the budget, nor will it put additional inflationary pressure on the national economy. These tax cuts build on a broader plan to ease cost-of-living pressures, and they come on top of the tens of billions of dollars in relief across child care, higher education, energy bills, rent and medicines, which have all become cheaper. We are already rolling these out in the economy, and we're seeing real benefits to Australian families. These cost-of-living tax cuts for Middle Australia mean every taxpayer will get a tax cut from 1 July this year. The average Australian worker will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year. That's around $29 per week. It's a manageable tax cut, and this money will add up in everyone's pocket. It might be used to help pay the rent, pay the bills or ensure that children can attend a school excursion. It is sensible relief now when people need it the most. To put the plan into more perspective, it means anyone earning $100,000 a year will get a tax cut of around $42 a week or $2,179 a year. For a family on an average household income of around $130,000, with one partner earning $80,000 and the other earning $50,000, their combined tax cut will be over $2,600, which is about $50 a week and $1,600 more than they would have got under the old plan under the Liberal Morrison government. This is a plan to ease the burden of rent or a mortgage repayment. It is genuine cost-of-living relief to help every Australian. This significant tax cut reform is good news for all Australians, and it's good economic policy. This is why the Labor government exists and why we exist as a labour movement—to pass national building reforms and to make life better for Middle Australia and working Australians. I'm rightly proud to be part of a government that cares and has taken action to relieve the cost-of-living pressure for all Australians. To help that, not only have we introduced paid parental leave and extended it but we are now, as a government, going to be paying superannuation on paid parental leave. How good will that be in helping mums and dads and parents to return to work when they're ready after taking on the responsibility of caring for their new bub? What a delightful time. We as a Labor government are helping to ease that pressure. One thing you can always bank on is when you have a Labor government—and it is no different with an Albanese Labor government—we are about fairness, and about opportunity for young people, for women, for everyone to have a good work environment, to earn more and to keep more of their own money. Tasmania: F1 in Schools STEM Challenge 112 20:05 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania F1 in Schools is a multidisciplinary challenge presented by the by Re-Engineering Australia Foundation, REA, and supported by the Department of Defence. Combining STEM education with business enterprise, this is an incredible learning experience for young people. Teams of students aged between nine and 19 collaborate to design, manufacture, test and race a miniature F1 car for the STEM side of the competition. The enterprise side requires each team to promote its F1 efforts to create and sell products to raise funds, find industry mentors to help team members develop their ideas and source sponsorship which maximises their efforts. Three schools from Launceston represented Tasmania in Adelaide for the F1 in Schools national competition last week—Queechy High School, John Calvin School and Riverside High School. Queechy's team, Zenity, and John Calvin's team, Sleipnir, joined four teams from Riverside—Zenith, Convergence, Titanium and Crescent. Notably, Riverside became the first school in Australia to have four teams qualify for the national final which was held at the historic St Peters College. Given that St Peter's College has produced three Nobel laureates, 10 Australian premiers, 42 Rhodes Scholars, an Australian of the Year and many Australian and Imperial honours recipients, it was an exciting location for the Tasmanian students, who pitted their talents against 37 other teams from around the country. These students competed in development and professional classes, with each team producing engineering and enterprise portfolios and a trade display as well as racing their cars. Each member also presented verbally, explaining their role in the team and answering questions from the panel of judges. Students used IT to learn about physics, aerodynamics, design, coding and manufacturing. They used software like Fusion 360 to create their F1 models and print the final design in balsa wood, using CNC machining for the development class. Professional class cars were manufactured with other nonmetallic materials, which was a great way to showcase the more experienced teams' innovation and engineering nous. Students learned how to pitch their ideas, how to negotiate and work together as a team, how to think creatively, how to coordinate a major project, how to adapt when something changes, how to set and manage a budget and then how to market their product. These are skills that will prepare each participant for careers ahead for whatever industry they choose to work in. Each team raised thousands of dollars to cover the money needed for resources, travel expenses and competition entries. Not only did they source sponsorship from businesses in and around Launceston but they also approached local businesses and asked for raffle prizes, held fundraising events and sold the branded products they developed as part of the enterprise component. What an incredible opportunity for these high school students and their dedicated teachers to represent Tasmania at the Australian finals. For many students, this trip to Adelaide was their first time travelling interstate and independently. A journalist and photographer from Launceston's daily newspaper, The Examiner, met the Riverside High School students and their teachers before they jetted off to Adelaide at the airport. The four smiling faces of the Riverside F1 in Schools team leaders beamed from the front page of the paper the following day, with all Riverside competitors featured inside. The F1 in Schools competition week started with each team's car being checked against the specified height, weight and length criteria during scrutineering. This was followed by their trade booth displays and interviews with enterprise and engineering team members, and then two full days of racing, which was livestreamed so parents and classmates could watch. The week culminated in a ceremony with individual awards, special recognition awards and major awards presented. I am thrilled to say Tasmania was represented on the podium. Before I get to that, though, I want to acknowledge the work of the teachers, support staff and students who volunteered as part of the judging team. Indeed, two Riverside High School teachers, Adrian Smith and Richard Gregory, were recognised as REA fellows at the ceremony. Without that level of dedication from schools and each student's family, these incredible young people would not be able to stand proudly on stage representing their state. My congratulations go to Queechy High School, John Calvin School and Riverside High School for representing Tasmania so well. I particularly congratulate Riverside, with three of its four teams bringing home awards. Convergence won fastest lap in professional class, Titanium won best reaction time and outstanding industry collaboration in development class and Zenith won best team portfolio and best managed enterprise and placed third overall in the development class. An outstanding effort! Congratulations! Parliament 113 20:10 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Our democracy is struggling because too many people have tuned out. They are disconnected from politics and don't think that we here are at all interested in listening to them or actually representing them. Largely, they are right. In my decade here, I've heard from so many people who are grateful and surprised that I have listened to them and spoken up for them. In contrast Labor and the coalition have people just where they want them: feeling powerless and disillusioned and resigned to the idea that nothing changes. That gives these parties free range to implement policies that prioritise the profits of the big corporates rather than the wellbeing of the people. With Labor and the coalition largely agreeing on their planet- and community-destroying policies, they can get away with only paying attention to voters in marginal seats and trying to bribe them with trinkets and baubles, rather than committing to the fundamental changes that are needed for a fair and healthy society. Big corporations have too much power in this building. That power is reflected this week in the government's plans to introduce legislation to weaken our environment laws so that the resources minister, not the environment minister, would be the one signing off on massive new 'carbon bomb' gas fields that will destroy the cultural heritage of First Nations land and sea owners, despite a big majority of Australians wanting to see no new coal and gas. Big corporate power explains why, even though Australians think that the top two things that we should be doing about the housing crisis are providing more funding for social and affordable housing and increasing rental assistance for people on low incomes, the government keeps giving massive tax breaks to property developers and will not invest nearly enough in overcoming the huge shortfall in public and community housing or providing sufficient income support to people trapped in poverty. It is no surprise that people don't trust governments and don't engage. How do we get people to realise that their vote matters and to realise that they are powerful? How do we rebuild trust and make parliament and government more representative of, and responsive to, the people? I think there are three important things that should be done. Firstly, parliament has to become more representative of the diversity of Australian society. Changing the Constitution so that people with dual citizenship can be MPs would be a good starting point. We have to open up the discussions here to a broader cohort of people who currently struggle to have their perspectives heard, let alone valued, and to make sure that they are respected, not demonised. Secondly, we have to be more transparent. Information is power. Too often, critical information is hidden to boost the particular case and to discredit others, which corrodes people's faith in our democracy and destroys their trust that we as their representatives are engaging in good governance. Fundamentally we need to all share the same information and commit to basing legislation and other actions in evidence and on quality research and scientific facts, regardless of how inconvenient those truths may be. We need to reform our freedom of information systems and stop blocking orders for the production of documents to ensure that such evidence is available to all of us and to enable us to shine a spotlight on government decisions that are made that are inconsistent with that evidence. Thirdly, we need to work more collaboratively. People want us to work together, but working collaboratively involves not just hearing different perspectives but grappling with, and seeking to understand, different views and seeing if we can agree on some things and respectfully differ on others. I'm not saying that we should strive to reach consensus about everything. We won't always be able to reach consensus for a range of reasons. One reason is that reaching consensus relies on an underlying philosophy that everyone has the right to have their views respected as much as everybody else. Sadly, not everyone here agrees with this. Another is that to reach consensus you have to be able to share information and trust that the information won't be misused. But we can do so much better in sharing perspectives, understanding where others are coming from, learning from each other and acknowledging that no one person or party has a monopoly on wisdom rather than resorting to simplistic slogans and personal attacks. And if Labor and the coalition aren't interested in making these sorts of changes, then there's a clear pathway forward for people who care about strengthening our democracy and better representing people—and, yes, that is to vote Green. PricewaterhouseCoopers 114 20:15 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise once again in this place to talk about the disturbing breach of trust which was perpetrated not just by Mr Peter-John Collins of PwC but, according to the evidence that we have, by almost 50 senior members of the firm PwC International. It has been a year since I first began asking questions in the late evening of estimates on 15 February 2023 about the breach of Australia's confidential information which occurred, and I discovered that the Australian government's plans to crackdown on multinational tax avoidance had been shared over email not just to parties within Australia, but to those around the world as part of the PwC international conglomerate. In the year since that time, our country has laid witness to the grotesque greed, the ethical apathy and the leadership failure. This has allowed not just PwC to manifestly fail in their ethical and regulatory obligations, but this incident has seen the largest firms within the audit and consulting sector all face a renewed and more strident level of scrutiny. Along with my colleagues from across the parliament, and through the diligent efforts of the media, we have prosecuted these issues and brought the scale of misconduct in this sector to light. In contrast, while the consulting sector, and PwC in particular, seem eager to talk a big game with regard to their supposed desire to reform, the truth continues to tell a different story indeed. Just today it was revealed through the work of Edmund Tadros at the Financial Review that there is an explicit agreement between PwC Global and PwC Australia. Simultaneously a conglomerate and a franchise, this agreement apparently enables the global firm to actively intervene in the affairs of the Australian firm when the internationals determine that the PwC franchise has brought the global brand into disrepute. This agreement, which has become public in the last 72 hours, enabled the global firm to oust Australian Kristin Stubbins. She is the person who acted as the interim CEO after the resignation of Mr Tom Seymour, also CEO of PwC Australia, who followed in the steps of his predecessor, Mr Luke Sayers, now CEO of Sayers group, who oversaw the ethical and cultural failure of PwC Australia for the period from 2012 and through this tawdry tale. PwC clearly inserted their own trusted actor—his name is Mr Kevin Burrowes—to repair the image of their discredited international PwC brand. They sought to stem the problem here domestically but it seems predominantly on the global stage. Now I would wholeheartedly agree that the actions of Mr Peter-John Collins and those others directly involved with the tax leak scandal brought not just the firm but the entire profession into severe disrepute. I would, however, argue that this is the primary issue at hand. What seems clear, given Mr Burrowes' explicit installation in PwC, is that he is part of a strategy to protect the firm's global brand. Secondary to that come any changes to culture and practice or ethical standards in the Australian context. The international dimension of the tax leak scandal is also an issue of deep concern. As the internal PwC emails released by the Senate show clearly, senior members of the PwC firm across the globe knowingly received and planned to utilise Australia's confidential information. PwC and CEO Kevin Burrowes have repeatedly claimed they're simply unable to access and provide the Linklaters legal report, which chronicles this international collusion. But, given the clear and explicit insertion of Mr Burrowes as an actor of the global brand, it appears that his evidence about not being able to access that Linklaters report on the tax scandal is nothing more than a convenient piece of legalistic positioning. For the now PwC Australia CEO to come before the Senate and withhold relevant details surrounding his own insertion into PwC Australia is not merely an oversight but a direct obfuscation. This is a sector in deep need of reform. The Switkowski report refers to the factors which enabled confidential misuse of government information. (Time expired) Ukraine 115 20:20 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Saturday 24 February marked the second anniversary of Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. Over the past two years, people from across the world have watched the remarkable resolve of the Ukrainian people in their fight against tyranny, authoritarianism and coercion. It is this resolve that should serve as a reminder to all of us how precious our way of life is, with the things that we often take for granted: our parliamentary democracy, our freedom to elect our legislators, our freedom to worship the god of our choice, the freedom to speak our minds and the freedom to live free from the fear of bomb or bullet. These are freedoms that we all take for granted—along with the freedom to stand in this chamber and disagree passionately with each other. We should never forget that and we should never stand by when the freedom of others is threatened or taken from them. We need to remember that this isn't just a war about land. This is a war on democratic and individual freedoms. I met with representatives from the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations, who recounted how Russian soldiers are kidnapping Ukrainian children and taking them to education centres to indoctrinate them into believing in a world that exists without their homeland—that Ukraine isn't real. They told me stories of the valour of Ukrainian soldiers using every tool they can get in their fight for freedom, including how our Bushmasters are assisting them on the front line. Dealing with extraordinary challenges, the Ukrainian community here in Australia are a testimony to that same resilience, raising millions in aid for their friends and families back home and advocating tirelessly for more support. Australia's aid, both military and humanitarian, for Ukraine has had bipartisan support, as it should. Something that all sides of this chamber and the other place all agree on is the fundamental principle of a liberal democracy—being able to live free from coercion and from an authoritarian state. Australia's support commenced in 2022 under the Morrison government and has been continued by the Albanese government since the election. This has provided significant support to the people and the armed forces of Ukraine. However, there is more that we can do, and more that we should do as a country, to continue to help the people of Ukraine. They, like us, are a liberal democracy, and they are at war fighting for their freedom. We have decommissioned MRH-90 Taipan helicopters that Ukraine have asked us to give to them—a simple request that would be negligible from a budgetary perspective. Instead, they are gathering dust in storage facilities, whilst our friends manage a war with ever-diminishing resources, such as transporting injured Ukrainian fighters on the backs of makeshift utes and trucks. What are we doing? Why are we waiting? We need to reopen the Australian embassy in Kyiv, as over 67 other nations have done, including our AUKUS partners, to show a united front with our allies and with Ukraine. Why haven't we done this? As a resource-rich nation we have the opportunity to supply more coal so that Ukraine can keep the lights on during their darkest days. Why can't we do this? We must also work towards finalising the double taxation agreement between Australia and Ukraine to support a rebuilding effort. Amongst all of this, we must deliver a long-term strategy that ensures a sustainable support pipeline for Ukraine in the years ahead. In committing to this, the government would be bolstering our ally's confidence to continue the fight against tyranny. As former prime minister Abbott said late last year, Ukrainians aren't just fighting for their own freedom; they are fighting for everyone's freedom. Ukrainians are dying so that Americans, Britons, Australians and others don't have to fight and die. It is a reminder of how consequential this conflict is for the continuance of the rules based order and for peace, not just in our region but across the world. If Australia values the rule of law, territorial sovereignty, free and fair trade, human rights and multilateralism, we cannot be passive benefactors of a system that has created the conditions for our nation to flourish. We aren't a country of inaction or complacency when things become difficult—we have demonstrated this historically—and we shouldn't start now. Senate adjourned at 20:25