DOCUMENTS

2024-03-21 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 21 March 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 1

Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Why are we here? For what reason does this parliament exist? We are here to represent and exercise the will of the Australian people. We are their servants, and they are our employers. We are here by their leave, with their permission to do what they tell us to do. For many years, the Australian people have been telling us to lower immigration, to keep the numbers low, to put the interests of Australians living here before the interests of foreigners who don't. Since the election of the Albanese Labor government, these calls have grown louder and stronger. They're being heard in the newspaper columns of economic commentators and housing experts. They're being heard in the growing lines of people waiting to inspect a single property in the hope of securing a rental. They're being heard around family dinner tables, as Australians struggle to find the money for huge rent hikes amid our cost-of-living crisis. They're being heard in the daily traffic jams, as record numbers of immigrants flood our cities and increase congestion. They're being heard in the growing cities of tents, swags and cars popping up around Australia as more people fall into homelessness and despair. The Albanese government is deaf to all of them. In January this year, there were just over 125,000 new arrivals. That's more than the entire population of Ballarat and almost as much as Darwin's in a single month. Since the election, the number of new arrivals has reached more than a million. Australia is experiencing the biggest two-year population surge in the country's history. There are now 27 million people in Australia. It's a staggering number. In September 2003, the Bureau of Statistics published a projection for Australia, which said our population would reach a figure between 23 million and 31 million by the year 2051. With our current immigration levels, Australia is on track to have more than 31 million people before 2035—16 years earlier than the ABS projected. This has happened despite the majority of Australians being firmly against it. The majority of Australians do not want a big Australia. This is confirmed every time Australians are polled on the issue. Let's have a look at those numbers. In a Newspoll in 2018, 56 per cent of Australians wanted lower immigration. An Essential poll in 2018 found 64 per cent of Australians believed immigration was too high. In an Australian National University poll in 2019, 70 per cent of Australians did not support further population growth. In a Resolve Strategic survey in 2021 it was 58 per cent of Australians. In an Australian Population Research Institute survey in October 2021 it was 69 per cent. Then, in February 2023, an Australian Population Research Institute survey found that 70 per cent of Australians wanted lower levels of immigration. This is all about lowering immigration. They don't want a higher population. In an Essential poll in May 2023, it was 60 per cent of Australians. In a Resolve Strategic survey in July 2023, it was 59 per cent. On ABC's Q+A program in August 2023, 65 per cent of Australians wanted immigration cut to relieve pressure on housing. A Resolve Strategic survey in 2023 had 60 per cent of Australians saying immigration was too high, and 74 per cent thought immigration under the Albanese Labor government was unplanned and unmanaged. Then there was a Freshwater poll showing 61 per cent. Labor isn't listening. It's not interested. The coalition didn't listen either until I kept putting pressure on them when it was around 260,000, and then Prime Minister Morrison dropped it to about 190,000. One Nation has always championed lower immigration, in solidarity with the Australian people. I've been saying it since I first came here. Here's what I said in my maiden speech as the member for Oxley in 1996: Immigration must be halted in the short term so that our dole queues are not added to by, in many cases, unskilled migrants not fluent in the English language. I also warned we were in danger of being swamped by immigration from Asia. I was called racist, of course, by the major parties and big media, who are in lockstep for a big Australia. But today seven out of the top 10 source countries for immigration to Australia are in Asia, including four out of the top five. The numbers are out of control. Was I right? You'd never admit it, but yes I was. Immigration was higher then, and I tried to explain to people back then in 1996. Then I said in my first speech in the Senate in 2016: Australians have never been permitted to vote on immigration and multiculturalism. When have we been asked or consulted about our population? We reached a population of 24 million this year, 17 years ahead of prediction. Governments have continually brought in high levels of immigration, so they say, to stimulate the economy. This is rubbish. The economy is stimulated by funding infrastructure projects, creating employment. What major projects have we had in this country for the past 30 years? How many dams have we built in the past 50 years? The only stimulation that is happening is welfare handouts—many going to migrants unable to get jobs. At present, our immigration intake is 190,000 a year. High immigration is only beneficial to multinationals, banks and big business, seeking a larger market while everyday Australians suffer from this massive intake. They are waiting longer for their lifesaving operation. The unemployment queues grow longer—and even longer when government jobs are given priority to migrants. Our city roads have become parking lots. Schools are bursting at the seams. Our aged and sick are left behind to fend for themselves. And many cities and towns struggle to provide water for an ever-growing population. Our service providers struggle to cope, due to a lack of government funding, leaving it to charities to pick up the pieces. Governments, both state and federal, have a duty of care to the Australian people. Clean up your own backyard before flooding our country with more people who are going to be a drain on our society. I call for a halt to further immigration and for government to first look after our aged, the sick and the helpless. Those were my words in 2016 in my maiden speech in this place. What's changed? Absolutely nothing. I'm delivering the same words today in this bill that I'm presenting, but I'm asking for the people to have a say because you have completely ignored the people. You're not listening to them. Most Australians don't want high immigration, and the major parties completely ignore the polls that universally confirm this fact. However, there's one type of poll they can't ignore: a national plebiscite. This mechanism for asking every voter their opinion has been available to Australian governments since Federation but has only been used three times in 123 years. It was used twice during the First World War by our seventh prime minister, Billy Hughes, to ask Australians their opinion about military conscription. Both plebiscites saw Australians—most notably, the diggers themselves who went to the polling booths set up behind the trenches on the Western Front—reject conscription. The results prompted the first historic split of the Australian Labor Party, when Hughes took some senior members with him to join the old Commonwealth Liberal Party in 1917. Labor didn't win government again until 1929. The only other plebiscite was held in the 1970s, when Australians chose 'Advance Australia Fair' as our national anthem, and I think it is time we have another one. It is important that we have another one. I think it's past the time to ask every Australian voter what they think is an appropriate level of immigration. This will give the major parties an opportunity to make their case—why they've completely ignored the will of the Australian people. I find it amazing that in just about every newspaper, on radio stations and on TV channels our high immigration levels are spoken about, along with the housing crisis that we have and the congestion on our roads, yet you are doing absolutely nothing about it. You are increasing the numbers coming to this country, and you can spend $450 million to have a voice to parliament. That was more of a concern to you—to give less than three per cent of our population a voice to parliament. That's where your priorities lie, not with the Australian people. You must go around blindly when you drive down the cities and you see tent cities, people living in their cars, people queueing up in their hundreds to possibly get rental accommodation or those young Australians who will never have the hope and chance of owning their own home. It just amazes me. The major parties will be able to explain how they keep immigration levels to please their corporate masters. They'll be able to come clean about the fact that they use high immigration to paper over the widening cracks in the Australian economy to burnish their terrible economic credentials. That's the real reason behind this, isn't it? Gross domestic productivity has dropped. You've lost industries and manufacturing, so you bring in migrants, who prop up the economy because they buy more whitegoods. You've got people like the Harvey Normans of this world and Bunnings who all want higher immigration because they're going to sell more products. That's what it's all about. You're not interested in the average person out there. In 1996 I could see the writing on the wall, because I came straight from my shop. I was running a small business, talking to people and living it. I was living it, and that's why I've never forgotten. I don't know what happens to people when they come to this place. You lose your backbone. You actually lose contact with the Australian people. You don't really care because your seats are safe. You don't put yourself out there to actually raise the issues that are important to the Australian people. I don't think you really understand how much they're struggling. You go on and make your speeches in this place but when you're out in the real world it's a different matter. Your actions speak louder to me than your words, and there's no action on this at all. As I said, national productivity has fallen more than seven per cent since the election of Labor, and we are now in a per capita recession. Let me repeat that: national productivity has fallen more than seven per cent since the election of Labor, and we are now in a per capita recession. Interest rates have soared, driving thousands of Australian families into mortgage stress. High immigration has been a disaster for Australia. On behalf of the majority of Australians, I demand a halt to immigration. We must catch up on our housing, infrastructure and services. We must care first for the Australians living here now. Why is that such an issue? Why can't you just listen to the Australian people, pull back on the immigration and let us catch up on the services that we need? You can't even get doctors out to rural and regional areas, so health services are pathetic. You've now announced a $4 billion housing fund for Aboriginals to be built in remote areas at a cost of about $1 million plus per house, possibly $1½ million per house, and yet other Australians are living in tent cities. You're promoting and giving them a reason to go and live in remote areas with no hope of employment or real services, and it is going to cost the taxpayers more money to actually send people out there. It beggars belief, what you are doing. I don't know who your masters are, but it's certainly not the Australian people. We are their servants, and we should be listening to them, but you've turned a deaf ear to the Australian people with regard to this. I want the people to have a say—a real say. There should be a debate. There's never been a real debate about this. You've never explained to the Australian people why we should have high immigration. You can't even explain that. You don't want to, because you can't. You're incompetent. Explain to them why you're bringing so many people into the country. Maybe they might agree with you if you can explain it, but I'm doubtful you ever can. It doesn't make sense to me. I hope that you see common sense and give the people a voice. To the people out there, I say: if they don't give you a say on the high immigration that's coming into this country and destroying your way of life then don't vote for them anymore. Change your vote. Send a clear message. They don't deserve your respect, because they're not listening to you. They don't respect you. You are the Australian people. You have the power in your hands at the next ballot box. At the next federal election, make your vote count. 09:17 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak in relation to this private member's bill, the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018. At the outset, I'll state that the opposition will be opposing this private member's bill. There were points made by Senator Hanson in relation to this country's immigration policy which I think are points which would be raised by many Australians—in particular, the chronic shortage of housing in this country at this point in time. We have a situation where between 2022 and 2023 there was net overseas migration of 518,000 people. The reality is that, when we are looking across our cities and our suburbs et cetera, Senator Hanson was right when she said that there is a chronic shortage of housing, and that needs to be considered by any responsible government in terms of calibrating the rate of overseas migration into this country. It is a point which has been made by the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, the member for Wannon. In a media statement released on 3 January 2024, he said: The record scale of Labor's Big Australia by stealth that is fuelling inflation, driving up rents, and straining government services has been revealed by new data released today. Record overseas migration of 518,000 people in the 2022-23 financial year has already been confirmed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. To achieve this, the Albanese Labor Government has broken more records than Ian Thorpe when it comes to issuing visas. According to answers to Senate Estimates Questions on Notice, Labor was responsible for a record-breaking Big Australia in 2023: Record 577,295 student visas granted … Record 125,090 Temporary Graduate visas … Record 140,934 Covid work visas … Record 464,539 Temporary resident visas … There is a legitimate question that all senators in this place need to ask in relation to what the right level of net overseas migration is, especially given the housing supply constraints this country is currently suffering under, and that is something we should all consider. However, notwithstanding the fact that there are absolutely legitimate questions that need to be asked, debated and considered in relation to Australia's immigration policy, the opposition does not believe that this is the right path. The first point I want to make in that regard is that we sit in a parliamentary democracy. At the next election, members of One Nation, including Senator Roberts, members of the Labor Party, members of the coalition—the Liberal and National parties—and members of the Greens will all face our electors. We will all have to be responsible for the decisions that we've made in this place and in relation to the policies that we articulate and take to the people. The voters—the constituents—will have a right and an opportunity to keep each and every one of us accountable to them. We are their servants. We're accountable to them with respect to how we vote in this place and what policies we take to the next election. That's the way our system works. Once the government is formed, ministers are appointed under our Westminster system. Each of those ministers has the carriage, through a cabinet process, of these policy areas. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs is responsible for the policy on immigration. The minister and the Albanese government are responsible for the current mess in that portfolio, and they should be held accountable at the next election. That is the way the system works. As Senator Hanson conceded in saying that there have been only three or so plebiscites over the last 100 years, that is effectively the way the system works in Australia. Governments come in and governments are kicked out on the basis of the views of the Australian people. That is our system of government. The second point I want to make is that I genuinely do not believe that you can distil something as complicated and multifaceted as an immigration policy into one question. When I was reflecting on Senator Hanson's speech—and I was listening very carefully—I was thinking about the different components of an immigration policy, such as the particular skills shortages we have in certain areas and how we meet those skills shortages. I was thinking about the perennial question: are we able to move migrants into our regional and country areas and meet skills shortages in those areas with respect to jobs which many Australians who have been here for many generations aren't prepared to take on? I was considering our humanitarian intake. Australia has always had a very generous humanitarian intake. We do our bit in that context. This is a multifaceted question, and it's linked to housing supply as well. We need sufficient housing supply if we're going to bring people into this country. It's fair to them, and it's fair to us. This is a multifaceted policy area, and I genuinely do not believe it is possible or optimal to try and distil it into one question. Ultimately, the government, while it is in government, is responsible for the administration of this policy. The government is responsible and is answerable to the Australian people at the next election. In this place as a house of review, as an upper house, it is our obligation to engage in a debate such as the one Senator Hanson has triggered today. It is Senator Hanson's role as a senator from my home state of Queensland to put this debate on the table. It is the role of our committees to interrogate particular policies and issues through the references committees processes. That's our job. While I've been in this place, I've seen senators from all corners contribute to that debate in good faith and in a meaningful way. All of us—through different pathways, no doubt—are seeking a better Australia as we see it, and that is our role as a Senate. The debate we're having now is part of that process. I genuinely do not believe that you can distil something as complicated as an immigration policy into a single plebiscite question. I don't believe it's optimal, and I don't believe it's practical. I think each and every one of us need to be responsible to our electors with respect to what we do and say in this place and the policies that we represent. The Australian people will have an opportunity to vote as to whether or not they agree with the government's migration policy or with the position of the opposition or the crossbench—One Nation, the Greens or whoever it is. That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. I do want to make a few reflections in relation to our multicultural communities. I do this having, last Saturday, shared the evening with the LNP's wonderful candidate in the Inala by-election, Trang Yen. Trang is a member of our wonderful Australian Vietnamese community. And we know the story. Many Australians fought in Vietnam. The communist north prevailed in Vietnam. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands—millions—of Vietnamese fled Vietnam after the communists had succeeded in Vietnam. Eight hundred thousand Vietnamese died on boats, seeking freedom for themselves and, more importantly, for their children—800,000 died. Under the Fraser Liberal government, Australia opened its arms to that Australian Vietnamese community. We opened our arms to that community, and that community has contributed so much to this country. That community brought with them an appreciation of our values: freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of conscience. That community brought with them a determination to make the most of every opportunity in this country. They came here with nothing, wearing just the clothes on their backs and the trauma of their backgrounds. They went to work and established small businesses. They built them into medium-sized businesses. They supported their children going through schools. Every Tet festival that the Vietnamese community has—I attend that festival with my friend Milton Dick, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, from the other place; he's from the other party, but we share common views with respect to that festival—they present awards to their highest-performing children and students. That's how much they value education. I can remember having one discussion with a grandmother, who came to this country as a refugee because of the generosity of the Australian spirit, the Australian people, and I asked her: 'Your grandchild's getting an academic achievement certificate today. What are they going to do?' And this grandmother responded, 'Well, Senator Paul, she's going to do accounting.' I said, 'Why is she doing accounting?' The response was: 'Well, we already have six doctors, four dentists and three lawyers. We need an accountant.' This is just one example of one community, our Australian Vietnamese community, who are contributing so much to our country, and they are a blessing. One of the chapters in the Australian story is our Australian Vietnamese community, who have been such a great success. Before I came to this place, I attended a memorial for the Amoy shepherds who came from China in the 1850s. There's a memorial to the Amoy shepherds out in St George in western Queensland. Those Amoy shepherds were Chinese indentured labour. At the time their region of China was going through a devastating famine, and there were agents sent across to China to try to convince young men to come to Australia, to western Queensland, and act as shepherds because Australia had a chronic labour shortage. Those young Chinese men signed up on the basis that they wanted to provide for their families back in China. They had every expectation of returning to China. Not one of them got back to China. Not one of them. And every one of those shepherds came to Queensland, which is today a six- or seven-—I am sure Senator Hanson has been to St George—or eight-hour drive, walked to St George and acted as shepherds, away from their families, away from their communities and contributing to this country, back in the 1850s. When we have these debates it is important to put on the record, as I am seeking to do, the contribution that is made by people who come to this place from different parts of the world. We have a demographic crisis in this country as well; we need more young people to support us as we get older. I reflect on the fact that when my mother was in her last 12 months she had to make that awful transition into an aged-care facility. She was suffering chronic, chronic pain. You would not wish it on your worst enemy. And who was there looking after her? Who was having a cup of tea with her at 2:30 am when she was in chronic pain? I cannot express my thanks to the staff at that facility more. It was a young lady of African background who was working in that aged-care facility and an young lady of a Pacific Island background, from our wonderful Pacific family. They are the people doing the work in the aged-care facilities, looking after our mothers and fathers at their time of need, so we need to reflect very deeply and carefully on these issues. The opposition has raised its substantial concern in many debates with Senator Hanson with respect to this government's current mismanagement of our migration policy, but I genuinely in good faith do not believe that this bill is the right way to approach such a complicated policy. 09:31 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I also rise to speak on Senator Hanson's Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018. We have heard a contribution from Senator Scarr this morning. I know he is someone who has worked very closely with members of a lot of multicultural communities in Queensland, particularly the African and Vietnamese communities. It was a very insightful contribution about the benefits that we all get to enjoy from a number of migrant communities who have come to Australia to call Australia home. But I do find it a bit ironic that this week is actually Harmony Week, a week we are meant to be celebrating and recognising the diversity that makes Australia such a great place to live—the envy of the world. Bringing people together from all different backgrounds shows how inclusive we are, how respectful we are and gives us the sense of belonging to the greatest country on earth. Yet before us today in the Senate we have a private senator's bill that was brought before this parliament in 2018, I remember, back when I first came into this place and I made a contribution then. This bill continues to be placed on the Notice Paper, and that is the senator's right to do so. But it is an area of debate that, in my opinion, has well and truly long gone. We are no longer debating these types of bills, and rightly so. We already debated the terms of this bill back in 2018. We had the bill reintroduced after the 2019 election and now we are again debating the bill today in the Senate, and I suspect we will probably have the same outcome. When I spoke on the bill in the past, many others in the chamber spoke about their backgrounds. I am a proud son of a family who migrated here from Italy after the war. We came to this country and my parents made a great contribution. I really do feel compelled to speak on the bill briefly today because it is important that we place on the record not just our opposition to these types of bills but the benefits of migration to Australia. It's this very place—Parliament House—that was built when we had a number of migrants come and put together every single brick, all the concrete, all the timber and all these pieces of furniture we have here today. I've never come across a migrant who isn't proud to be an Australian; in fact, I find them much prouder to be Aussies, particularly on citizenship days. I've written many times about how proud migrants are to call Australian home and to be Australian. I've always found people at citizenship ceremonies, particularly on Australia Day, to be so proud to be Australian and to call Australia home, because they want the best for their kids and for future generations. These sorts of reasons are why I, along with many others, had to speak on the bill beforehand. It is fair to say that this bill does fail to understand Australia's heritage and fails to understand where Australia is going in the future, thanks to the contribution by migrant communities. I want to make it very clear to members of this place that Labor will not be supporting this bill. We never have supported it and we never will. As senators will remember, when this bill was initially introduced some parliaments ago, as I mentioned earlier, we opposed it with vigour then, and I note that we will do so now. It was also opposed with the same degree of vigour by those opposite when they were in government. There was strong language that was used by some in the government then, and I want to refresh people's minds about what was said. 'There was nothing noble about this bill,' one government senator back then said. Another also said, 'It will put economic improvement at risk.' We do hear from time to time about the economic impacts of migration, but it is interesting to note and again place on the record that the Albanese government, thanks to the work that it's had to do in the Department of Home Affairs since coming to office, is now seeing migration levels taper off. In fact, migration levels are now forecast to drop. By 2030, we will see around 30 per cent less than what was forecasted under the previous government. We're already starting to see migration levels dropping over the next two financial years in the forward estimates. It's not because we are anti migration, but we do recognise that there needs to be a change of focus on migration in this country—away from temporary migration and toward more permanent migration, with migrants who want to make a more permanent, meaningful contribution to this country. We had a number of visas that were on offer that did prop up parts of the economy but were only for short-term hits. This government is saying: 'Enough of that. We want to see migration levels stabilise. We want to see migration that is on a more permanent basis in order to have a much-longer-lasting impact that is much more beneficial to our economy and to this country.' It's the hard work that this government is doing in the Home Affairs space that is bringing migration back to a sustainable level after all the comparable countries experienced a post-pandemic surge. We're trying to restore some integrity to our educational system as well. As I said, the analysis by the Centre for Population shows that the Australian population is now expected to be smaller by 2030 than the pre-pandemic forecast by the former government. I really do hope that, if there are other contributions here today, when considering this bill again, we do count on the support of senators—particularly those opposite—not just to vote down this bill but also to make very clear the type of sentiment that this bill has. We have no place for this bill in our vibrant and very robust democracy. I know there have been a number of issues raised by Senator Hanson, Senator Scarr and others, but this parliament can handle debates of all those natures. We are trying as a government to pass legislation to deal with the housing crisis. We're also trying to deal with the economy and trying to tackle the cost-of-living crisis that is currently before this place. The parliament can walk and chew gum at the same time, but we shouldn't also be spending time putting a question to the people in a very limited context without explaining to them the full context of how migration has actually made a significant contribution rather than the negative position, that somehow migration is bad, that is being put. In fact, it is not. As you can see, what we have done so far is ensure that this House will recognise that our story of this country—the story of us, of who we are as migrants—is tied to our heritage as a proud migration nation. With the exception of our First Nations people, all of us have come here at some point in search of a better life for ourselves and our families. Today, nearly half of Australians were born overseas or at least have one parent that was. As I said, in my own case, my parents came here after the war in the sixties from Italy because they knew that this place was where one could actually work hard, get ahead and create a future for their children. They weren't alone. They joined roughly seven or 7½ million others since the war who heard about the same promise. They wanted to also join in—to pack their lives into a suitcase, with very little, and make that journey to this land, which prides itself on having boundless plains to share, as we say proudly in our national anthem. We owe much of our prosperity as a nation to those who make this journey. Indeed, the Australia that we all know and enjoy today simply would not have been possible were it not for the contributions of many of these people who were born overseas and people who've been here for a very long time. In our community, roughly one in three businesses are now run by people who have a connection to a migrant community. Treasury has also outlined in many reports—I think in one of their recent reports they estimated that the migrant intake was worth around $10 billion over the five-year period—that migration improves the Commonwealth's fiscal position, since migrants are likely to contribute more to taxation revenue than they claim in social services or other government support. I can attest to this myself, in my home state of Victoria, where one can barely walk down a mall or a high street without seeing the value that migrants make to our economy. But central to the defence against the kind of divisiveness that we are seeing before us is not merely the important role that migrants play in our economy; rather, it is advancing the vision that we all have for our nation. What would Lygon Street in Melbourne look like without the coffee machines? What would Box Hill look like without the dumpling restaurants? What would Oakleigh be without the smell of lamb meat wafting around down Eaton Mall? I know there are a couple of Victorian senators who are smiling, but they understand where I'm coming from. We really need to be careful when we do have these debates. What is it that we are trying to achieve? What is it we're trying to fix? It's not the people that are causing the problems. I think it's fair to say that we need to look and see, 'How can we as a parliament and as governments do better?' But let's not go after the individuals who want to make a better life here in this country. The truth is that this nation would not be what it is today without the contributions made by those who have come here hoping to make a great contribution to this country. It is not for us to subject this to a divisive and, to be perfectly honest, I think, hurtful plebiscite. Whilst Labor accept that it is important that we make sure that we get the balance right in our migration program, this is the responsibility of any government to decide, with the best advice at hand. There is simply no place in our inclusive and proudly diverse nation for expensive polls. We really need to have a serious think about where we go forward as a nation. This is clearly not a bill that I and members of the government will be supporting. 09:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 is simply saying, 'Give Australians a say.' That's all we want. We want to listen to the people and let the people decide. Give the people a say—a voice, if you like. Senator Hanson is driven to do what's in the national interest. That means protecting Australians and protecting Australians' lifestyle. This is simply a voice. Give Australians a say. Make no mistake; the figures show that we are in a per capita recession. I've said that in the past in the Senate and I continue to say it. Labor lies and policies are hiding that because you, as a government, do not want to be blamed for putting the place in recession. This is something that's been carried through from the Morrison government to the Albanese government. Australia is in a per capita recession, and you're hiding it with high immigration numbers. They raise artificially the GDP, making sure that we don't have two quarters with negative growth. Without high immigration, this country would be in recession. You are doing the people a disservice and you are hiding the fact that we are in recession. You're doing the people a disservice because they're now sleeping in cars, under bridges, in tents and in caravans. They're being moved to showgrounds—moved along from parks—in Bundaberg, Gladstone, Townsville, Cairns, Logan, Ipswich and Brisbane. I can step out of the CBD in Brisbane and within minutes of walking I can find people living in tents. Through the chair: Senator Watt and Senator Ciccone, are you aware that in our state, which is so fundamentally wealthy, we have thousands of people living on the streets? They are being moved on daily because they can't be kept in one place any more than three days. Some of these people have got jobs—and that's where they live! We're creating and exporting our wealth to the world—5½ million Queenslanders are creating wealth for the world and our own Queenslanders are living in tents and living in cars. Some of them are being picked on by rangers, and as they're moved on their kids are confiscated. These are working people. The key issue here is trust. We cannot trust the Albanese Labor government, just like we could not trust the Morrison Liberal-National government. Another key issue is serving the people. Senator Hanson mentioned it. I mentioned it. As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, we are raising this issue because it is fundamental to Australians' lifestyle, security and productivity. Senator Hanson raised immigration many years ago. She's famous for it. Three of her four grandparents were immigrants. She's not against immigration; she's against overimmigration. She's making sure that the quality of migrants is suitable for our culture, our laws and our values. This, though, has nothing to do with Senator Hanson. It's simply a plebiscite to give people a say. You wanted it for gay marriage, homosexual marriage, and now you won't let the people have a say in something even more fundamental. Senator Hanson has a very simple approach to politics. She hasn't an elaborate political philosophy. She has a simple approach: do what's right for the national interest—that's it. That means doing what's right for the standard of living. Senator Hanson and I are proud to support this bill because it is about propping up and restoring our standard of living. I raised immigration, particularly in connection with housing, starting a couple of years ago and I've been bashing it ever since. Have a look at my Facebook page, my Instagram page and my Twitter page. This has been a sincere and genuine concern of mine for years now. We have, as I said, people living in cars, tents and caravans and getting moved around in showgrounds. We had in January, just two months ago, record immigration. We had 125,000 new arrivals in January alone. I haven't done the maths, but that's around about 1½ million a year. After removing the number of people who left Australia that left 55,375 net migration into our country in one month. That was 40 per cent above the previous record for January way back in 2009. We have returned to the days of very high immigration, but we have gone way beyond that. We have 2.3 million people on working visas in this country, meaning 2.3 million beds and 2.3 million roofs over beds are needed. We have 600,000 students. We only have beds for 100,000 university students. So the university students we are bringing in to give us income are taking beds off Australians who need beds. Politicians in this country, the Liberal-Nationals and the Labor-Greens, follow a big Australia policy, a massive Australia policy. The people do not. The people want a fair Australia policy. Trust, as I raised a minute ago, has been languishing in this place, and trust in the Albanese government has plummeted. Trust is made up of two components basically: integrity or honesty and competence. The Albanese Labor government is showing neither. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, let me tell you about a phone call I had just yesterday. I had a New South Wales truckie call me. This man was looking for a job. He admires the way our office runs and he wanted a job. He's a truckie. I've met him in the past. He's a wonderful man with a wonderful family. He's on the Central Coast of New South Wales. He helped out during the fires. It cost him a lot of money to help out during the fires of 2019. He stood up to the COVID injection mandates in 2021. He's a really decent person, who was making sure that he stood up because the COVID injections killed his aunty. This is a man who's got the same genetics as his aunty, and he knew that the COVID injections would kill him. As a result of the COVID mandates which Scott Morrison's government put in place and drove, and as a result of the economic policies that Anthony Albanese's government is driving, he lost his business, a vibrant business employing seven people. Let's look at housing. As I've talked about many times in the Senate and outside, we have a critical shortage of houses in this country. How do you respond as a government? You jack up the bureaucracy. You call it a $10 billion investment in housing when we know that that is just the fund and it's only the returns from that fund which will be invested in housing, a few hundred million dollars a year. But you've added three new bureaucracies. They build bugger-all. What we need to do in this country is to stop the castration of property rights and to free up land. We need to free up tradies from overregulation and get on with the job of letting our tradies build the houses. People can't find rental homes at the moment. The vacancy rate is 0.7 per cent, a record low. There are no bloody houses, and there are foreigners who own a lot of our houses and lock them up. But, no, you don't want to do anything about that either. You turn a blind eye to that. My mother was born in this country. My grandparents were born overseas. They were immigrants. My father was an immigrant. So I'm half immigrant and I'm proud of that. I'm proud of being Australian, but I'm ashamed that the people in this chamber and the people in this parliamentary building want Australians to suffer. When you're in Queensland, one of the wealthiest places in the world, and you cannot get a house, so you sleep in a tent or in a car with your family and you do it because they're covering up a per capita recession, that is cruel and that is inhumane. It's not just un-Australian. It is inhumane: the bureaucracy, the regulations, the United Nations-World Economic Forum alliance, policies restricting land, big immigration policy, inflation caused by the people in this chamber—the previous Morrison government and now the Anthony Albanese government—and energy prices. Our country is the largest exporter of hydrocarbon fuels in the world. When you add up our coal and our gas, we are the largest exporters of energy, but we can't use it here. We drive up inflation. We drive up energy prices. We drive up housing costs, and then we see people living in the streets in tents in Queensland. We see that the Liberals and Nationals are waking up to this issue. Senator David Sharma last night mentioned housing and immigration. We've been talking about it for several years now. He also mentioned that we need to do something about bracket creep. Recently, the Liberals and Nationals had a perfect opportunity to vote for my amendment on tax changes that would have ended bracket creep. You said no. Instead, you're going to help the Labor Party steal $38 billion in the next four years from Australians because of bracket creep. You both want bracket creep. That's the truth. You say that you don't want it but, when the time comes to have a vote, you don't vote for ending bracket creep. You vote for bracket creep because that's how you steal more money from Australians, just like you're stealing their livelihoods and their accommodation. I proudly speak about people's wants and needs. Australians have very simple wants and needs. They want security, they want a good Aussie lifestyle and they want a fair government that looks after them—not one that steals from them. They want people in this place and in the House of Representatives to put the national interest first —not to bring in 2,000 Gazan immigrants with just one hour of processing. Only One Nation wants to give Australians a say. Under Senator Hanson as our leader—we're the only party with a female leader, I might add, and proudly so—we've had a policy of a citizen initiated referendum for 10 or so years or perhaps even more, because One Nation is about giving the people a voice. One Nation is about holding Labor-Greens coalitions and Liberal-National coalitions accountable. A plebiscite is very, very simple. There's only one question in it: should we reduce immigration? What are you afraid of? Should we reduce immigration? Let's hear from the people: yes or no. That's all we want. We want to put the people first in this country. That's what we've been doing and that's what we will continue to do. That's why we have our energy policies and our immigration policies. We want to stop the mess that is unfolding in this country. Australia used to have the highest per capita income in the world; that was 120 years ago. We're now slipping below many other countries. We're heading for 20th. Yet, according to the United Nations, we have the richest resources in the world. You and you are squandering those resources. You're stealing from the Australian people and now you're making sure that they don't get a house and that they don't get a rental. They'll keep sleeping in parks. All Senator Hanson and I want is to put the people first, to serve the people and to give the people a say. Should we reduce immigration? It's over to the people of Australia. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the bill be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [10:03]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

3 AYES Babet, R. Hanson, P. L. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) 38 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 9

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023

In Committee 9 10:06 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 The committee is considering the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 and the amendments moved by Senator Faruqi on sheets 2396 and 2402. As divisions were called for after 6.30 yesterday evening, the questions will be put again now. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is a deferred division. The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2396 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [10:11]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

10:14 The CHAIR 287062 We now have another deferred division. The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2402, standing in the name of the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [10:14]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:17 The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

The committee divided. [10:21]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. 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. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading 11 10:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 10:25 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria by leave—Mr Deputy President, under the standing orders I ask that the opposition's opposition be noted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Your opposition will be noted. National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024 11

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 11 10:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. In doing so, I note that the most significant change proposed by this bill is for the Minister for Skills and Training, as is so often the case now across this government in different portfolios, to seek to directly control market entry of new registered training organisations. Again, that is what the minister for skills is seeking to do in this bill. He is seeking to directly control market entry of new registered training organisations. I also note, though, that the bill introduces a new power that allows the minister, by legislative instrument, to direct the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, to pause the registrations of new registered training organisations. This would need to be agreed with state and territory skills ministers. The bill also tightens rules for RTOs in their first two years of operation and makes a number of changes to the way the regulator, ASQA, processes and prioritises the registrations of new training organisations. The government, in typical Albanese government style, has framed this bill as a response to integrity and quality issues. When you look at it like that, you think to yourself, 'This is a response to integrity and quality issues within the training sector, so all must be okay.' However, feedback from across the sector is, yet again, that there was very minimal consultation before it was introduced. But, again, that is a highlight of this government. They talked big on transparency prior to the election. Then, suddenly, portfolio across portfolio across portfolio across portfolio, when bills are presented, stakeholders say: 'Hey. Hold on. We haven't been consulted with.' Again, this is a very, very bad process. It certainly does not indicate the transparency that this government campaigned on prior to the election. But, as I said, it is, unfortunately, as we have all come to know, now the modus operandi of the Albanese government. Given the track record of this government putting government-run training providers ahead of the needs of students and their outcomes, the approach to this bill actually gave cause to just pause and have a look at it. We do like to consult. We liked to consult when we were in government, unlike the current government. Both in government but also in opposition it's incredibly important. We went out and we sought the views of the training sector and the business groups on what the changes would mean for them. What would be the impact of the changes on the relevant people affected by this legislation? While there was a high level of caution around this bill, particularly around the minister's new power to pause the establishment of new training organisations, there was a broad alignment on the intent of the bill. However, what was made very, very clear to us was that some amendments were required. Obviously, as the coalition, we have tabled a number of amendments, and I am pleased that the government has agreed to support the amendments so that we are able to make this bill a better bill. As I said, there are noted concerns around transparency and accountability of this new ministerial power. The opposition will put forward amendments that will force the minister to publicly justify the use of this power to the sector, the parliament and the public and to mandate that a determination to pause the establishment of new training organisations be in place for no longer than a 12-month period. We believe these amendments will establish an important guardrail for this new power. They will also enshrine a level of protection that would prevent the minister putting in place a pause that would in fact turn into a de facto ban. The principle here is that we expect that this power would be rarely used and, therefore, there should be increased transparency and accountability when it is exercised by the minister. It is also important that we do not overreach with intervention here, because what we do want to do as a coalition is very much what we did in government—that is, support our dynamic and innovative skills and training sector in Australia. So, it's important the government does not overbalance in pursuit of the objective, and it is a very worthy objective, of quality outcomes. But we also need to be aware of the consequences when the government gets this area of policy wrong. That is why, as I said, we consulted with the sector as the opposition, unlike the government, which did very limited consultation. The sector said to us, 'We need these amendments to make the bill (a) a more workable bill and (b) a better bill.' The coalition is therefore putting forward the amendments, and I understand that the government will be supporting them. Of course, we should never forget why we're in this position in the first place and why we need to strengthen this regulator. If you look back to the coalition's time in office versus the former Labor government's time when they were last in office, it is a direct comparison. It was an absolutely appalling record for the last Labor government in relation to skills policy when they were last in office. In fact, when you talk to stakeholders today, they are actually still scarred by what occurred. They will also say to you that everything the former Labor government touched in relation to skills ended up being detrimental to the sector and was a total disaster. That is actually borne out by the statistics. Apprenticeship numbers plummeted. Here is the statistic. When Labor last left office, apprentice and training numbers were in freefall, with the number of those in training collapsing by 22 per cent. And this still scars people today because we are still seeing the effects of it. The most egregious of Labor's failures was their absolutely doomed VET FEE-HELP disaster. You talk to people about it today—I've talked to people who were affected by it at the time. Seriously, they do not have a good news story to tell about the former Labor government. As we know, the former Labor government's VET FEE-HELP scheme saw the very proud reputation of the Australian skills sector hit rock bottom as tens of thousands of Australians were loaded up with debt for doing courses that would never get them a job. This was a scheme established by the former Labor government in 2008. They then expanded it in 2012. It was plagued by system-wide rorting, with some training providers exploiting loose rules and charging students substantial debts for training—you will never believe this!—they never undertook or benefited from. And yet the system was able to be rorted and the training providers were able to exploit the rules to the detriment of vulnerable students in the sector, some of whom are still paying off debts today. The scheme targeted, appallingly, people with disabilities, people with substance abuse issues, public housing residents and people from non-English speaking backgrounds. Others—and this was a shocking part of the exploitation of Labor's scheme—were offered free laptops and other incentives to sign up to courses without knowing they were about to be saddled with a debt that was going to last them a very, very long time. In fact, in 2014, the Hon. Michael Lavarch was the commissioner then responsible for risk intelligence and regulatory support at the Australian Skills Quality Authority. This is what he said about Labor's VET FEE-HELP scheme: I have been in and around public life for a long time. I think I can fairly say that this was the worst piece of public policy I have ever seen. What an absolute indictment of the former Labor government and the policy that they put in place. Guess what? It is 2024, Senator Scarr. Taxpayers are still picking up the tab for this enormous public policy failure and, to date, this failure of Labor government policy has cost the Australian taxpayer $3.5 billion. You can laugh all you like about that but that is a direct failure of Labor government policy that has now cost the Australian taxpayer over $3.5 billion. But this is the ironic part: who presided over these values at the time? Well, none other than the then member for Gorton, who is now returned as the skills minister. That is why consultation on legislation that the Albanese government brings forward is so important, because it is the same member today who is responsible for the failures of the former Labor government, in particular, a scheme that was rorted, that resulted in the exploitation of students and has cost the Australian taxpayer $3.5 billion today. Can you honestly imagine, with a cost-of-living crisis, what you could do with $3.5 billion? Let's jump forward to 2024. What we are seeing again, and this is now borne out by the statistics, is the impact of the Albanese government's approach to skills. The latest data from the National Centre for Vocational Education and Research shows the Albanese government is again overseeing a collapse in the number of apprentices and trainees in every single state and in almost every electorate across the nation. After just one year of the Albanese government, there are over 50,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in training today than when Labor took office. That is a loss of one in 10 in just one year. The data also shows commencements of apprentices and trainees have dropped by 40.1 per cent over the same period. What that means is 110,000 fewer Australians started a new course, qualification or trade under the last year of Labor versus those who started under the last year of the former government. The data has also been broken down by electorate and it shows that, in the final year of the coalition government, in-training numbers increased—not decreased, increased—in every electorate across Australia bar one, while under the first year of the Albanese government, the number of apprentices and trainees has dropped in every electorate except four. That is the actual fact. They are the statistics of the impact of government policy. Under the coalition, you saw an increase; under Labor, you have seen a decrease. You can't make excuses for that; that is just bad policy. In fact, in the minister's own electorate in the last year of the Liberal government, the numbers went up by 32 per cent. In his first year in office, he has lost 10 per cent of the apprentices and trainees in his community. Let's have a look at the Treasurer's electorate. In the final year of the Liberal government the numbers went up by 43 per cent. In the first year of office of the Treasurer, he has now seen over a 15 per cent drop in the number of apprentices and trainees in his own community. Instead of worrying about these decreases, the Labor Party just changed their narrative. Instead of taking responsibility they continue to blame the former coalition government. Last time I looked at the statistics, they showed the policies we put in place, the investment we put in place, actually had a positive impact on the sector. The narrative that those opposite ran for nine years when the coalition were in government was that we had cut funding from skills, which, as we know, the statistics show is not true. What they are now saying is that the coalition spent $3.8 billion annually to 'prop up the apprenticeship system'. That was from the member for Gorton, the Labor Party. I would have said to the coalition: congratulations for investing in the apprenticeship system in this country, which is what was so desperately needed. On one hand the government are saying—when it suits them—that we cut funding but on the other hand they are saying we apparently over-funded skills. You could not make this up. But the reality is you can't have it both ways. You can't just change your rhetoric to suit your political narrative, because ultimately you will be caught out by the statistics. It is a fact that, when it comes to funding under the former coalition government, our policies invested over $13 billion in skills over the final two years of the coalition government alone. We also didn't just clean up Labor's mess; we made the most significant reforms to skills in over a decade. It is actually very disappointing as a former skills minister to now see the detrimental impact Albanese government policy is having on the skills sector in Australia. They came to power promising they would resolve the skills shortages, and what we are seeing is that they have delivered a collapse in apprenticeship and trainees starts and a collapse in the number of Australians in training. 10:40 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. This bill amends the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 with the aim of improving the quality of vocational education and training. The Greens support the bill. The Greens are proudly the party of fully funded public education where students have fee-free access to the best learning conditions and where staff enjoy secure, well-paid jobs and feel valued and respected for the incredible work that they do. The Greens will always support TAFEs and public universities as the primary provider of education and training and the first priority for government funding. Education is a fundamental public good. It should never be privatised and it should never be for profit, yet, tragically, for years and years, we have seen our excellent TAFE system ripped apart by successive governments through regulatory neglect, significant underfunding and the destructive privatisation of the sector. TAFEs do excellent work despite these circumstances, but the government's market model has been putting the sector under huge pressure, with job insecurity, poor working conditions and private providers getting away with the neglect and exploitation of students. We know that, for years, dodgy private providers have been at the centre of exposes and inquiries that have revealed widespread practices of neglecting students for the sake of profits. A 2015 Senate inquiry revealed a litany of exploitative practices by private VET providers, including the misleading of students on the likely debt to be incurred, false promises about equipment and facilities and deceptive about employment and qualification opportunities. In the 2018 Braithwaite review, the Consumer Action Law Centre described examples of providers misleading students on course costs, immigration outcomes and likely salaries following qualifications. They call for ASQA to prioritise the scrutiny and investigation of misleading and deceptive conduct by private VET providers. Meanwhile, the Australian Dental Association said it has particularly been RTOs operating on a for-profit model which have deliberately targeted disadvantaged people, luring their participation in courses by offering free tablets or laptops without providing the quality teaching that students expect in return. Over the years, review after review has uncovered and confirmed extensive practices of private vocational providers neglecting and deceiving students—especially international students—all for the sake of making a buck and a profit. After years of failing regulation, it is welcome to see this bill take steps to prevent and deter the unethical behaviour of dodgy RTOs, including strengthening penalty frameworks for misleading and deceptive conduct and by more closely regulating RTOs at the point of and shortly after registration, which recent reviews have recommended are critical times for intervention. While these are important steps to stop the unethical conduct of dodgy RTOs, there is really nothing in this bill or in the government's reform agenda to properly address some of the fundamental problems with the vocational training sector. Commercial interests have for so long trumped quality in education and training, and the competitive market model really has utterly failed. We need big and bold changes to bring vocational education and training back into public hands, and we need to supercharge our TAFEs with significant increases in funding, and ensure that staff are properly resourced and supported. Funding cuts by state and federal governments and Labor's contestable funding model have privatised and decimated our public TAFE system. The coalition cut over $3 billion from TAFE funding from 2013 to 2021, forcing many TAFEs to close or significantly downsize. In New South Wales alone, a whopping 12 entire TAFE campuses have been closed and sold off by the government since 2012, while many others have been massively hollowed out. In a 2020 Australian Education Union survey of TAFE staff, 81 per cent of the respondents said the team budget had decreased over the previous three years, and 68 per cent of respondents said the institution had stopped providing courses over the three years prior, with the most common reason being lack of funding. The decline of TAFEs has continued in years since, and the Labor government must act urgently to reverse these trends and undo that damage that has been caused over so many years. A publicly owned and fully funded TAFE system is the only appropriate model to ensure an accessible and high-quality education system. Government funding should not be going to private providers, where again and again we've seen the quality of education fall by the wayside at the expense of making profit. TAFEs should be the provider of choice and the priority for government funding. We must also shift away from the competitive and contestable funding models, which has seen worse outcomes for students and staff and has been a distraction for providers from the key task of providing high-quality education and training. The government should be guaranteeing significant long-term funding for TAFEs, allowing them to attract and retain staff and to provide students with the best learning environment. Everyone deserves access to high-quality education, no matter their bank balance or their background, and, while some recent Labor government announcements of more fee-free TAFE places are very welcome, what is needed is to make TAFE and uni free for all. Free higher education has the potential to transform our society, giving all people the opportunity for world-class education and training and ensuring that no-one is saddled with a death sentence in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis—or ever, in fact. The government needs to get their priorities right. Instead of spending half a trillion dollars on stage 3 tax cuts, which finally has produced a bit, and building dirty war machines, it could make TAFE and uni free many times over and fund so many other essential services at a fraction of the cost. Making TAFE free would open up education opportunities for many who are currently locked out. The recent Universities Accord report found that students from low SES backgrounds and First Nations students are more likely than those from high SES backgrounds to enter university after first undertaking vocational education and training. If Labor is really serious about increasing participation in higher education, then it should remove all financial barriers to study and training entirely and make TAFE and uni free for all. Improving working conditions in the vocational education and training sector must also be a priority. It is unacceptable that so many TAFE staff are in precarious and insecure work and their wages are not at all keeping up with the cost of living. An Australian Education Union survey of TAFE staff found that around 90 per cent of respondents did not have adequate technology, equipment and resources to even deliver the training. Less than a third of the respondents expected to spend their career working in TAFE, and more than three quarters said they had considered leaving the sector in the last three years, with high workload, excessive hours and a lack of support for staff amongst the most common reasons for wanting to leave. Increasing funding to TAFE goes hand in hand with attracting and retaining staff, of course, and ensuring that staff are properly resourced and have fair pay and working conditions. The government should also set clear and measurable targets for higher rates of secure work across the higher education and training sector and work with the staff and unions to link Commonwealth funding to reductions in the rate of insecure and precarious work. TAFE staff work incredibly hard and do an excellent job under very challenging conditions. They are the beating heart of our TAFE system, and the government must do more to ensure they are valued and respected for the incredible work that they do. I just want to say a few things about international students. As we have seen in review after review, international students suffer the worst of exploitation by dodgy RTOs. It is welcome that this bill will help improve this, but there is so much more the government should be doing to support international students and trainees in Australia. International students make incredible contributions to our society yet are the last to be provided with government support and access to essential services, and the first to be scapegoated and blamed for the government's failures, from housing to unemployment. Not only do many international students struggle to afford the basics amidst this cost-of-living and housing crisis, but they experience significant racism and marginalisation across society. We owe so much more to international students, whose perspectives enrich our cultures and make our streets vibrant and diverse and whose skills and ingenuity help to solve the country's most pressing challenges. We must do better to embrace their contributions and properly support them, and this starts by providing them with the best learning conditions but extends to improving access to essential services, from housing and transport to health and income. And we must work to ensure that our institutions and policies are actively antiracist. The Greens support this bill as a step to improve integrity and quality in vocational education and training, but it really does nothing to reverse the years of damage inflicted by underfunding and privatisation of our public TAFEs. TAFEs should be the first priority—and I cannot say this often enough—for all federal funding for vocational education and training, and I remain staunch on the view that TAFEs should be the vocational education provider of choice. That means fixing the whole system by moving away from the market model governments have made it, reversing privatisation and contestability and investing in public provision. The Greens will continue to push for these changes that are needed to restore public funding to TAFEs as the provider of choice, ensuring access to high-quality training and education for all students and an excellent working environment for all staff. 10:52 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Today I rise to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024, which will strengthen our vocational education and training sector. It's a sector that helps form the backbone of our economy and plays a pivotal role in shaping Australia's future. Labor's introduction of fee-free TAFE has been a game changer. It's not just about making education more accessible; it's about empowering individuals to pursue their dreams and contribute meaningfully to society. Now we are committed to supporting a high-performing, reputable and trustworthy VET sector to deliver quality training outcomes and meet the country's workforce needs into the future, because a strong VET sector is essential to a strong economy. This bill is about strengthening and clarifying the powers of the national VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA. It empowers ASQA to take decisive action against corrupt and unethical registered training organisations and applies increases to penalties that ASQA can impose on RTOs for serious breaches of the act. These changes are long overdue, and these changes ensure our VET sector is one that can be trusted and provides those vital skills that Australia needs. Since introducing fee-free TAFE, 350,000 people have taken up places, with more set to roll out. This isn't just about those numbers; it's about creating pathways to secure work. With $30 billion invested in the National Skills Agreement, we are gearing up to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving economy. We want to nurture a workforce equipped with the skills needed to thrive in the jobs that our country needs, such as carers, early childhood educators, tradies and cyber experts. That's why we're working hard to repair the TAFE system, which was gutted by the coalition. We're fixing the pipeline of skilled workers and mending the massive skills shortages across the country, the worst we've seen in five decades, under the coalition. When we ensure quality TAFE, we are ensuring a quality workforce. That is why, through this bill, we are focused on improving regulation, because regulation only strengthens our mighty VET sector. Our apprentices and trainees deserve a high-quality VET sector that keeps them safe and sets them up for well-paid, secure work, delivering the skills needed to drive the economy. I have met some people who have benefited from our free TAFE program and I have heard some amazing stories—stories like that of Emily. Emily is a hardworking Gippsland mum who dreamt of pursuing nursing. But she was held back due to time and money. Thanks to fee-free TAFE, her dream isn't just a hope; it is becoming a reality. And she is not alone. There are countless people like Emily, eager to contribute to their communities but held back by circumstances beyond their control. In my home state of Victoria, institutions like Gippsland TAFE are leading the charge in providing quality education and training. And they're not just building careers; they are building lives and they're building economies. They are creating meaningful, well-paid and secure opportunities in a regional area that really needs those opportunities, because we are committed to supporting all Australians, regardless of their postcode. Our government's vision for this sector is crystal clear. We are here to create secure jobs for all Australians through a strong, fair and well-regulated VET sector. We are levelling the playing field and ensuring that everyone has a fair shot at building a successful career. Whether you missed out on studying straight out of school or you have been busy with caring responsibilities, fee-free TAFE is here to open doors and create opportunities. With this bill, we are ensuring vocational education is delivered by reputable and committed providers. It is getting these incredible people, who I've had the privilege of meeting out in Gippsland, back to work when we need them the most. Labor is delivering significant and enduring reforms that improve the lives of all Australians. So this bill is not just about strengthening the quality and integrity of the VET sector; it is also about investing in our people. It is about investing in our industries, investing in our regions and investing in our nation's future. So let's build a VET sector that we can trust, a sector that empowers individuals, fuels growth and paves the way for a stronger Australia. 10:57 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise today to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. When in opposition, the now government made a lot of noise about skills and about the training portfolio. But, to date, what we've seen from the government in the time that they've been in government is just a lot of window dressing when it comes to this issue. There is not a lot of substance behind what they're doing, and I seek throughout my contribution here to outline what I mean by that. First, there was the sham Jobs and Skills Summit; that was in 2022. Then there was a bill that renamed the existing agency, the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill; it didn't do much more than rename that agency. Finally, there was an announcement to flood the market with fee-free TAFE places. And now we have a bill that impacts registered training organisations. But when it comes to actually delivering for Australians—for those who are wanting to get better, more skilled jobs and for those employers across the country who are desperate to find people to work for them that have the requisite skills that they need to be able to fulfil their market and what they're trying to deliver for the Australian economy, indeed for their own businesses—this government is found wanting because it's not delivering. In 2022, there were around 4.5 million VET students. Around 3.4 million were enrolled with private training providers, and around 720,000 were enrolled in TAFEs. Around 490,000 were enrolled with community education providers, and others were enrolled at schools, universities and enterprise providers. Students can be enrolled with multiple provider types. So what does this bill hope to achieve? The most significant change proposed by the minister for skills is to seek to directly control market entry of the new registered training organisations. This bill introduces a new power that allows the minister, by legislative instrument, to direct the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, to pause the registration of new RTOs. The coalition support this change, in principle, but we are seeking an amendment, and we hope that amendment will be supported because it adds extra transparency and accountability to the change that this bill is predominantly making. This issue does need to be looked at. The bill also tightens the rules for RTOs in their first two years of operation and makes a number of changes to the way ASQA processes and prioritises the registration of new training organisations. The bill increases the penalty units specified under certain provisions of the current act. In relation to these changes, the Australian Industry Group remarked on 7 February 2024: The Australian economy is reliant on a strong, vibrant VET sector to develop the skills required for up to 50% of the jobs in our workplaces. These skills are best developed from a trusted VET sector, renowned for quality-focussed skills development. For too long, some unscrupulous providers and poor practices have cast a shadow over the sector. In turn, this has damaged its broader reputation, and that of the many quality providers, and has undermined the student experience, including for international students. Senator Cash in her contribution highlighted the absolute failure of the previous Labor government with their VET FEE-HELP scheme, which saddled students with incredible debt, as well as unscrupulous behaviour by providers, all supported by the previous Labor government's policy. It was unwound and fixed up by the coalition government when we came in but, sadly, some of those students are still battling with those debts, and the Commonwealth is covering the significant cost of what the Labor Party did when that policy was in place. Throughout the VET sector, we have seen a deterioration of quality, and there needs to be improvement. As someone who has worked across this field prior to coming into parliament, I can attest to it. We have to get our VET sector and our skills and training sectors focused on skills to deliver for jobs that exist and jobs for the future. We can't just have training for training's sake. Sadly, I think this is still a feature of our system. The government likes to talk about the fee-free TAFE model that it has brought in. I have no issue with TAFE whatsoever. I am a student product of TAFE. I did an apprenticeship as an electronic technician at Midland TAFE in the outer suburbs of Perth, and I received a terrific education there. But what we're seeing with this fee-free TAFE model is a preferencing of TAFE, rather than just allowing the market to decide who should receive funding based on the demand that has been placed on them by employers and by students who are actively selecting courses that they want to do. The reason that this is an issue is that the government, I think, have got the focus on the wrong metric when it comes to measuring the effectiveness of this program. They are focused on the number of places within the TAFE sector, rather than focusing on the outcomes. The outcome that matters to students and to employers is completion of courses and the number of people who are actually taking up work. That is an important measure because that determines whether or not the training that was received is actually suitable to the employers who want to employ these people. It's absolutely vital that we are not setting up our young people in particular to engage in training courses if they're not actually getting themselves involved in a course with a provider that is going to give them the skills that they need to be productive on day one in the job, when they set out to do it with their new employer. If you want an employer to come back for more trainees and you want an employer to come back for more new graduates, they need to have had the success with others that have come through. Often, it's the employer that determines the type of course, and this is actually how it should be. The employers in our country should be in the driving seat of what courses are offered, how those courses are delivered and, indeed, I would say, who actually delivers them. In many cases—in probably the majority of cases—the local TAFE can provide that. But there are circumstances where the employer might want to, with a training provider, provide that training so that they can get the bespoke training that they require for their business so that they can fulfil the job requirements that they have. But this government is fixated on fee-free TAFE, which sounds wonderful to the public. Australians love TAFE. It's a good brand, by and large. But employers are desperate for people with the skills that are necessary. The other issue with this focus on places rather than real outcomes, which is jobs, people getting and taking up employment and indeed being retained in that job—which is the other measure that should be measured—is the fact that people are engaging in courses that aren't leading to employment outcomes. I met recently with the outdoor recreation industry association operating in New South Wales. This crowd looks after outdoor industry type jobs, such as hikers, tour groups that go out into the wilderness, people that take tours up into the ski fields and mountain bike operations, horseriding operations—all of these wonderful tourist operations and recreational activities. They are desperate for people that are skilled in their area that know how to operate in that particular field as managers. You need to have the skills in first aid. You need to have the skills in management and emergency management. All of these sorts of things are required to be able to be proficient in that job. Yet they've told me that they keep hearing of people that are just going and doing units of competency at TAFE in basically recreational type areas. They're going and doing a mountain biking course without completing the full unit that gives them the qualifications that they need to be able to actually work in the job. So, sure, they've got some wonderful skills in how to ride their mountain bike, but they haven't got all of the requirements and skills that are required to be able to maybe lead a tour group that actually pays and is building the economy. This is the problem. When you just focus on places through this fee-free TAFE model and you're not focused on real outcomes, then you're missing out and we're putting taxpayers' money essentially into people's hobbies. That's not acceptable. Mountain climbing—you can go and do a mountain climbing course at TAFE. That's great, but people should pay for that themselves, frankly. People should pay for that themselves. Why is the taxpayer funding this sort of thing? If it's combined with, as I was saying, the other units of competency that are necessary to be able to get a job, then there's no problem with that. This is the issue. We need to have employer directed, industry directed, training. Employers should be in the driving seat of the courses. We can't just have people fulfilling their frolics in their interests. It has got to be about getting people into jobs that exist and that are real. The amendment that we're seeking to this bill is important. In the closing moments that I've got, I just want to address it. The amendment here will ensure that the pause that this bill provides for that the minister will be able to put on new enrolments is limited to 12 months. That is an important limitation because we would not want to see this minister or any future minister provided with the unfettered power to be able to manipulate the market in a way by just pausing it indefinitely. It might be the intention to just pause it for a moment, and that's fine. But we should make sure that there are some limitations on the pause that is there. A maximum pause of 12 months is what our amendment is seeking to implement. I would hope that that is something that can be supported. ITECA said they want to see: … amendments that strengthen the legislation by putting in place safeguards. These include placing a limit on the amount of time that a ban on new RTOs would be in place. It's also sensible that the government publish the underpinning reason for making such decisions. So it is absolutely non-controversial to ensure that this happens. It should be something that is supported because it provides the transparency that is necessary and it provides the assurance that there can't be a situation where a minister is using the power of the legislative instrument to just manipulate the market in a way that would prevent new registrations. There are times when industry, who are in the driving seat of the economy, are needing to be in a position where they can seek out the support of a training provider that is maybe uniquely purposed for them. Rather than just having this broadbrush TAFE model that doesn't actually address and deliver the needs specific to industry and specific to employers, we need to have a model that directly deals with them. The other point I'll make in the remaining 60 seconds that I've got is that there are wonderful opportunities in my home state of Western Australia, where we've got to see the RTOs step up to the plate in terms of training and providing people for the jobs that are coming as a result of AUKUS. There are going to be over 3,000 people who will have new jobs in Western Australia, not far from my home around the Rockingham area in Henderson. There's a wonderful, burgeoning industry that's there in the naval and submarine sectors, and there are jobs that are going to go wanting if we don't have the skills that are required. I want to call on this government, as part of this debate, to step up and to lean on the state government because, frankly, we're not seeing the Western Australian government do anything near what it needs to do in relation to leaning into the opportunities that AUKUS provides, whether that's in housing, in infrastructure or, in this case, in skills. 11:12 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024 is a good attempt to rein in a sector that has, from time to time, proven to be a cowboy industry. I've worked for an RTO and in employment services, but I've also been on the other side, unemployed and looking to RTOs to get back into work. In my 15 years working in employment services, I've witnessed countless long-term unemployed people getting back into work all because of an RTO. I've seen how RTOs help people pick up the skills they need to jump back into work and find their spot in the job world. As someone who was unemployed, an RTO gave me the opportunity to gain more skills and a job where I wanted to be—doing business admin. Unemployment is deflating, and in Tasmania services to help people bounce back into employment can feel like they're hard to come by. Trust in the RTO system is essential. It gives people the confidence that they can get a skill and get back to work doing a job they want. In my time, I have also seen shonky RTOs that put profits first and people second. From where I stood all those years ago and from where I stand today, this is entirely amoral and undermines the integrity of our VET sector. People go to an RTO for one of two reasons: either they need to go for their apprenticeship or traineeship or they want to get some skills under their belt to get a job of their choice. In Tassie, RTOs are even more important. They service regional and rural areas that our crippled TAFE system can't reach. Where I'm from on the north-west coast of Tassie, more people are trained through vocational training than through universities. Over eight per cent of people on the north-west coast of Tassie are trained by a VET provider. I have always backed RTOs and said they have a spot in our education system, and, if you've ever talked to me about skills and training, you know that I sing the praises of RTOs a lot. RTOs give people like me, people who didn't go to university, an opportunity to fit into the workforce, and when we talk about vocational education— Debate interrupted. NOTICES 19 NOTICES Presentation 19 Withdrawal 20 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, and pursuant to the notice given on 20 March 2024, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for two sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Migration Amendment (Biosecurity Contravention) Regulations 2023. COMMITTEES 20 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 20 Report 20 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the third report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 3 OF 2024 21 March 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 3 OF 2024 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 20 March 2024 at 7.10 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 and the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 May 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024 Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024 National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023 Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 Fair and Transparent Elections Bill 2024 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Legislate the Date to End Live Sheep Export Bill 2024 Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 21 March 2024 Appendix 1 S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To speak to stakeholders and understand the implications of this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Farmers, impacted stakeholders and other interested parties Committee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional Affair and Transport Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): April and May Possible reporting date: 10 May 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a b i ll to a committee Name of bill: Biosecurity Protection Levy Bills package Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: The Government has committed to delivering sustainable biosecurity funding. To help meet the costs of sustainably funding our biosecurity system, we will be introducing a small Biosecurity Protection Levy on agricultural producers from 1 July 2024. To ensure the scheme is up and running by 1 July 2024, the legislation needs to be pass by the end of May 2024. Possible submissions or evidence from: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Various industry bodies will make submissions. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Possible hearing date(s): Likely 2-4 hearings will be required with dates to be settled through agreement with the Committee. Possible reporting date: 3 May 2024 (signed) Senator Anne Urquhart Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted Question agreed to. BUSINESS 22 BUSINESS Rearrangement 22 11:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That— (a) the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024 be considered from 12.15 pm today; (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business notice of motion no. 500 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson relating to the Great Barrier Reef be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 22 11:17 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator McCarthy for 20 and 21 March 2024, on account of ministerial business; and (b) Senator O'Neill from 19 to 27 March 2024, on account of parliamentary business. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 22 COMMITTEES Education and Employment References Committee 22 Reference 22 11:17 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senators Henderson, O'Sullivan and Brockman, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 September 2024: The issue of declining academic standards in Australian schools, with specific reference to: (a) students' proficiency in literacy and numeracy; (b) the experience of principals, teachers and parents in meeting the challenge of raising academic standards; (c) the extent to which the experience of other countries with high or markedly high academic standards can inform Australian schools; (d) what support could be provided to teachers and what improvements could be made to the Australian Curriculum to raise academic standards in Australian schools; and (e) any other related matters. 11:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government will not be supporting this motion. It's a bit late for the coalition to be proposing this. Their record for almost a decade in government was school attendance down, high school completions down and teacher shortages up, and now they want a review. We've already done the review. The O'Brien review had a team of eminent experts visit 92 schools, hold 137 stakeholder meetings and consider 266 submissions from parents, students, teachers and experts. We have a 248-page report from them and we're getting on with the proper funding of schools and tying that funding to reforms that will lift student outcomes. I'm not sure what Senator Henderson thinks she can tell us that these experts have not. 11:19 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. Leave granted. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 I want to put on the record that the Greens, too, will be voting against this motion. Since the Gonski review we have had over 30 inquiries into schools and how they operate. We know what works; we have to get on and do it. It is insulting to every teacher and educator in the country that we are continually subjected to review. No other profession in this country is as reviewed as teachers and education. The reason we are in this mess is that we have systematically underfunded public schools for over a decade. The time for reviews needs to end. We need to get on, fund our schools and support our teachers in those schools. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Askew, at the request of Senators Henderson, O'Sullivan and Brockman, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:24]
(The President—Senator Lines)

27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 24 DOCUMENTS Attorney-General's Department 24 Order for the Production of Documents 24 11:26 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I, and on behalf of Senator Birmingham and Senator Paterson, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for the production of documents no. 472, agreed to by the Senate on 27 February 2024, requiring certain documents concerning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) has not been complied with, and (ii) the Attorney-General has again advanced a claim of public interest immunity stating that the production of the documents that are within the scope of the order 'would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security'; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim advanced by the Attorney-General, noting that: (i) the claim does not address the apprehended harm that could result from the provision of the documents to the PJCIS on a confidential basis, and (ii) the Intelligence Services Act 2001 establishes offences for unauthorised disclosure of documents provided to the PJCIS for review; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Attorney-General to comply with the order by no later than midday, on Monday, 25 March 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business motion 501 standing in the name of Senators Birmingham, Paterson and Chandler, and moved by Senator Chandler, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:31]
(The President—Senator Lines)

39 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 17 NOES Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. 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.

BILLS 25 BILLS Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024, Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024 25

Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024

Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 25 11:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 25 11:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— DEFENCE AMENDMENT (SAFEGUARDING AUSTRALIA'S MILITARY SECRETS) BILL 2024 In late 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence directed Defence to examine the adequacy of the policies and procedures for preventing former Defence personnel from transferring sensitive Defence information to foreign militaries with interests inimical to Australia's own. The examination recommended strengthening Australia's already robust legislation. This Bill is in response to that recommendation. This Bill also reflects Australia's commitment to enhance our security standards to safeguard sensitive technology and information, particularly as we embark on work through our AUKUS partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom. Elements of this Bill are modelled on similar provisions that exist in United States domestic law. While this Bill does not represent the entirety of our legislative ambition in this respect, it is an important step towards establishing more seamless technological transfers with our AUKUS partners. Australia already has a range of robust legislative measures and policies in place to deter and respond to the risk of foreign collection of our Defence secrets. The Criminal Code, for instance, contains general secrecy offences that apply to current and former Commonwealth officers, including ADF personnel, who harm the national interest by disclosing information entrusted with them. The Code specifically prohibits the provision of military-style training involving a foreign government principal. This Bill extends Australia's already robust legislation and policies further. It adopts a proactive approach by establishing an authorisation framework to regulate the performance of work and specified training to a foreign military, foreign government or foreign government entity. The Bill requires certain former Defence staff members to obtain authorisation if they intend to perform work for a particular foreign military, foreign government or foreign government entity. A former Defence staff member includes former members of the Australian Defence Force, former Australian Public Servants of the Department of Defence and the Australian Submarine Agency, and former members of the Reserves who rendered continuous full-time service. The Bill also requires any Australian citizen or permanent resident to obtain authorisation if they intend to provide training in relation to certain export-controlled items or military tactics, techniques or procedures, to a foreign military, foreign government or foreign government entity. The penalty for performing work for or specified training with a relevant foreign country without authorisation is 20 years' imprisonment. An individual will not commit an offence if they have been granted an authorisation for the work or training. There are also other exceptions to the offences created by this Bill. They include if an individual's work or training is in relation to providing aid of a humanitarian nature, or if the individual performs an official duty for the United Nations, an agency of the United Nations or for the International Committee of the Red Cross. An exemption also covers work or training in the course of an individual's employment or engagement by the Commonwealth. This Bill will enable the Minister for Defence to determine, by legislative instrument, which countries are not to be regarded as relevant foreign countries under this framework. This means that if an individual intends to work or provide training to a foreign country listed on the instrument, the individual would not be required to apply for an authorisation. This Bill will also enable the Minister for Defence to determine, by legislative instrument, a class of former Defence staff members who are not required to apply for an authorisation. The class may be determined by the type of work previously performed by the Defence staff member and the period of time that has elapsed since the performance of that work. Following the introduction of this Bill last year, the Deputy Prime Minister referred the Bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. On the 14 March 2024, the Committee published its report and made five recommendations. The Government thanks the Committee for its timely consideration of the Bill. The Bill also amends the Criminal Code to ensure consistency between the operation of this Bill and section 83.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 which establishes an offence for providing military-style training to a foreign government principal. These amendments clarify that if a person is exempt from the new offences in the Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets Bill, that the person will also be exempt from section 83.3 of the Criminal Code for the same conduct. The Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets Bill is not intended to prevent Australians from working overseas or with all foreign governments or militaries. Rather, the legislative intent is to prevent individuals with knowledge of sensitive Defence information from training or working for certain foreign militaries or governments where that activity would put Australia's national security at risk. This Bill will ensure individuals in possession of sensitive Defence information who want to undertake these activities first seek authorisation to do so. This is to ensure their activities are not damaging Australia's national interests. This Bill will enable the Minister for Defence, or their delegate, to consider each request for authorisation on a case-by-case basis. The Bill provides individuals the ability to seek internal or external merits review of certain decisions made under this authorisation framework. Authorisations may be granted subject to conditions and may be cancelled, suspended or varied in certain circumstances. An authorisation will be refused if the Minister, or their delegate, reasonably believes that the performance of the work or training by the individual would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia. The measures in this Bill are serious but necessary. The importance of protecting our nation's secrets and sensitive information cannot be overstated. The protection of our nation's secrets and sensitive information through this Bill is central to preserving Australia's national security and to keeping Australians safe. _____ DEFENCE TRADE CONTROLS AMENDMENT BILL 2024 In the complex and challenging strategic environment we face today, preventing our defence technologies, capabilities and information from falling into the hands of our adversaries is paramount. To keep pace with these challenges, it is essential that Australia has a robust protective security framework. Australia's export control system is a key element of our protective security framework. It is designed to prevent military goods and technologies being transferred to foreign individuals or entities in ways that prejudice Australia's interests. It will also streamline the transfer of defence goods and technology among Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States to enhance advanced scientific, technological and industrial cooperation. This is critical legislation. This Bill strengthens Australia's existing export control system by enhancing protections around the supply of controlled goods and technology listed on the Defence and Strategic Goods List (DSGL) within and outside of Australia. It bolsters Australia's national security, better protects our technology advantage, and safeguards Australia's technology and information, as well as that of our partners. And it will increase the innovation ecosystem with like-minded partners and support our collective ability to pull innovation through to capability, at scale and at speed. The reforms are expected to provide an estimated net benefit to the economy of $614 million over 10 years. The reduction in regulation through the national exemption for export permits to the US and the UK would benefit $5 billion of the almost $9 billion in annual defence exports. These exemptions would also mean that almost a third of the 3,000 export permit applications currently assessed annually are no longer required. Australia is not making these reforms alone. The United Kingdom and the United States are also reviewing their export control frameworks to support the creation of a licence-free environment between AUKUS partners. On 15 December 2023, the United States Congress passed groundbreaking legislation to give Australia and the United Kingdom a full national exemption from US export control regulations. This is a generational reform that will be fundamental to enabling AUKUS and creating a licence-free environment. Australia's access to this national exemption will require Australia to have implemented an export control system that is comparable to the US and have implemented a reciprocal national exemption from its export controls for the US. This Bill, coupled with the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets), achieves an export control framework that is fit-for-purpose and ensures we are able to access to the US national exemption. The Bill achieves this by amending the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 in four ways. First, it regulates the supply of military and dual-use DSGL technology, as defined in the DSGL, to non-exempt foreign persons within Australia. Second, it regulates the supply of goods and technology listed in Part 1 of the DSGL and the 'Sensitive' and 'Very Sensitive' Lists in Part 2 of the DSGL, that were previously exported or supplied from Australia, from a foreign country to another country, or within the same foreign country. Third, it regulates the provision of DSGL services related to Part 1 of the DSGL to foreign persons or entities outside of Australia. Fourth, it creates a licence-free environment for the supply of DSGL goods and technology and the provision of DSGL services from Australia to the United Kingdom and the United States. To give effect to these changes, the Bill creates new offences with appropriate penalties and exemptions. The Bill includes a number of exceptions to the three new offences to streamline trade with international partners, beyond the UK and the US. The exceptions seek to reduce the compliance burden faced by the industry, higher education and research sectors whilst ensuring the controls adequately address Australia's national security requirements. Following the introduction of this Bill in the House last year, the Bill was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. On 15 March 2024, the Committee published its final report and made nine recommendations, ultimately recommending that the Senate pass the bill without delay. The Government thanks the Committee for its consideration of the Bill, as well as those who made submissions and gave evidence to assist the Committee in its work. As a result of this inquiry and the co-design process undertaken with stakeholders a number of amendments were made to the Bill in the House. These amendments include enshrining certain exemptions to the offences created by the Bill into the primary legislation rather than regulations, giving those that may be impacted by the legislative framework greater certainty. The Bill is appropriately targeted to strike a balance between protecting our national security while supporting economic prosperity through international exports. Australia's export control regime is a permissive system designed to permit the responsible transfer of controlled goods and technology—these reforms do not change this underlying principle. To assist the efficient administration of this scheme, the Bill allows for the delegation of the authority to, in limited circumstances, decide and issue permits to Australian Public Service Executive Level 1 (EL1) officers. As the Deputy Prime Minister outlined to the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, this will be limited to the assessment and approval of low risk and low complexity applications. Defence will ensure that EL1 officers exercising this delegation will have the appropriate training and experience to make such a decision. These reforms are not intended to prevent foreign nationals from working with Australia on DSGL goods or technologies. They are not intended to prevent foreign students or academics from engaging with Australian academic institutions. Rather, the intent of the Bill is to prevent sensitive defence goods and technologies from being passed to foreign individuals or governments in a manner that may harm Australia's interests. The exceptions to the offences contained in the Bill intend to narrow the scope of the Bill to those activities and technologies that could prejudice the security, defence and international relations of Australia. This ensures Australia cultivates research and innovation and streamlines trade with international partners beyond AUKUS. This Bill and the licence-free environment will ensure Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States can collaborate, innovate and trade at the speed and scale required to meet the challenging strategic circumstances. These reforms represent a significant opportunity to unlock the benefits of AUKUS, helping establish a seamless industrial base between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. This is central to preserving Australia's national security and to keeping Australians safe. Debate adjourned. Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024 28

Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024

First Reading 28 11:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory 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 28 11:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory 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— It is important to ensure that the administrative processes and regulation under legislation remain fit for purpose and that obsolete legislation is removed from the Commonwealth statute book. The Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024 will achieve this by removing unnecessary regulation, modernising administrative processes required under agriculture legislation, and repealing a redundant Act. Research and development corporations play a vital role in the advancement of the agriculture sector. This Bill will streamline processes under the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989 by removing unnecessary requirements that are barriers to efficient administrative processes. The modernisation of administrative processes includes enabling the requirement to invite nominations for appointments to research and development corporation director positions to be met through advertisements on appropriate websites or publications, instead of requiring newspaper advertisements. The Bill will also provide for a more efficient process for winding up Selection Committees after nomination processes for research and development corporations directors are complete, and allow for lists of suitable persons to be utilised for nominations for a further 6-month period. This Bill will also contribute to the clean-up of the Commonwealth's statute book, by repealing the obsolete Rural Adjustment Act 1992. The provisions within this Act are now obsolete or have been superseded by other legislation and arrangements. This Bill will also make amendments to the Natural Heritage Trust ofAustralia Act 2013 that are consequential to the repeal of the Rural Adjustment Act 1992. This Bill will ensure that the administrative processes under agriculture legislation remain fit for purpose for modem times and contribute to keeping the statute book up to date. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024 28

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024

First Reading 28 11:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory 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 29 11:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory 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— This Bill will extend community television licences beyond the currently legislated 30 June 2024 expiry date and provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with instrument-making powers for when an alternative use for the spectrum is identified in the future. Community television adds crucial diversity to the Australian media environment. It provides local news and content, supports local businesses and serves as a platform for fostering the next generation of industry talent. With the help of around 4,000 volunteers, the two remaining terrestrial community television channels, Channel 31 in Melbourne and Channel 44 in Adelaide, create content that entertains and informs their communities each week. The Albanese Government is committed to keeping these community television stations in Melbourne and Adelaide on air until an alternative use for the radiofrequency spectrum they currently use is realised. This Bill will legislate to achieve this outcome by removing the current expiry date of 30 June 2024. It will create a new framework that reasserts the objectives of broadcasting and radiocommunications policy and the role industry and its regulator, the ACMA, have to play in assessing the possible uses of the last available high-power television channel—the so-called 'sixth channel'. In 1992, an inquiry into possible uses of that channel received more than 70 submissions supporting the introduction of community-owned and operated television. The Labor Government of the day accepted a recommendation to allow community television services to use the sixth channel until the spectrum was required for other uses, and asked the ACMA, or the Australian Broadcasting Authority as it was then known, to facilitate community television trials. Trial broadcasts began in 1994. Since then, community television has become a vibrant part of Australia's media ecosystem. However, the sector's existence has, more recently, been subject to debate and uncertainty. This Government is determined to realign the legislation with the original intent of the Radiocommunications Act 1992—to promote the long-term public interest derived from the use of the spectrum by providing for efficient planning, allocation and use of the spectrum. This Bill achieves this outcome by ensuring that Channel 31 and Channel 44 can continue to use the sixth channel to provide content that serves community interests. The first measure is simple. It repeals the 30 June 2024 expiry date for Channel 31 and Channel 44's apparatus licences under the Radiocommunications Act 1992. This means the ACMA may continue to consider renewing these licences, allowing the channels to access spectrum and provide content via terrestrial broadcasts. The second measure introduces two instrument-making powers for the ACMA instead of legislating a future date. The ACMA is well-placed to make these decisions in accordance with the objectives of the law, as the regulator with expertise in spectrum management and broadcast licensing and code registration, and in consultation with industry. The first instrument will allow the regulator to declare, via notifiable instrument, when an alternative use for the spectrum has been identified. This will provide the first notice to the community television sector that it will need to commence action to cease terrestrial broadcasting in the near future. The Government has made a clear decision not to be too prescriptive on what the alternative use may be given that this will occur in the future and we want to give ACMA flexibility to make the best decisions in this matter. It will be a condition that there be a period of at least 6 months from when this declaration is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation and when the second instrument can be made. The second instrument allows the ACMA to issue a determination that confirms a specified date which will be the day that Channel 31 and Channel 44 will have to switch off their terrestrial broadcasts. It is a legislated condition that this specified day will be at least 6 months from the date that the determination is registered. This two-tiered approach is the most effective way to ensure the two licensees can continue offering terrestrial community television services into the future until there is a decision about the use of the spectrum. It offers certainty to stakeholders—licensees and audiences alike—by providing a minimum of 12 months' notice to Channel 31 and Channel 44 to transition away from terrestrial broadcasting when an alternative use for the spectrum has been declared. Furthermore, industry will be consulted during this process. The Government recognises there should be a well-managed transition, and the legislated minimum 12 month notice period combined with industry consultation acknowledges this. Finally, the Bill will amend the code-making provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act to enable Channel 44 (which is the open narrowcaster) to be considered as a community broadcaster (like Channel 31) for the purposes of code making only. This is to make both licensees part of the same "section of industry" so that the Australian Community Television Alliance (ACTA) can make a single Code of Practice for both, for registration by the ACMA. This harmonises and simplifies the existing arrangement where the two licensees are regulated under separate codes of practice. The two licensees (Channel 31 and Channel 44), the ACTA, the community broadcasting peak body (CBAA), the commercial television broadcasting peak body (FreeTV), and the ACMA were consulted and are broadly supportive of these amendments. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 30 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 30 Reference 30 11:37 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I move: That, noting the recommendation of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee report into the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023 that the Australian Government review the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme, the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2024: The current Federal Government's COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Claims Scheme, with reference to: (a) the eligibility criteria; (b) the time in processing the claimants' applications, noting that as of 30 August 2023 fewer than 200 of 3803 claims had received compensation; (c) differences between Therapeutic Goods Administration assessments and specialist assessment reports included in vaccine injury claims; (d) the adequacy of the compensation in relation to the person's injuries, mental health and lost earnings; (e) the risks that inadequate support and compensation for vaccine related injuries may exacerbate vaccine hesitancy; and (f) any other related matters. I'd like to speak to this motion today because I think it's about time we called out Australia's history when it comes to dealing with victims of drug rollouts approved by the government. This is symptomatic of a long history of gaslighting of injuries. This goes right back. Just earlier this year, the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, came out and apologised to the victims of thalidomide. Unfortunately, they were hollow words, because those people were injured 60 years ago. Why did it take 60 years for the government to apologise to the people injured by thalidomide? It was too long. But there are more people in this country that suffer every day from government neglect in terms of quality assurance of the rollout of drugs in this country. We've got the infected blood people. In the 1980s, tens of thousands of Australians—in particular, children and haemophiliacs—were infected with AIDS and hepatitis C because the Red Cross and CSL refused to heat-treat the blood to make sure that the AIDS virus and hepatitis C were sterilised from the blood. The reason, as we found out in a Senate inquiry in 2004, was because CSL didn't want to lose yield on the blood products. As a result of that negligence, we have had, for decades, thousands of Australians suffer in pain and slowly die. If you want to read a story about it, I suggest you read Bryce Courtenay's April Fool's Day, where he wrote about his own son, who was a haemophiliac who caught AIDS. Being a haemophiliac requires a lot of blood transfusions. He went through a lifetime of suffering until he turned 18 or 19, and then one day he got a blood transfusion that contained AIDS. Of course, he rapidly died within a matter of years after that, and his father and his mother had to fight the government. The New South Wales government, I do believe, did pay out some money, but it was a battle the whole time through. We've also got people who suffered mesh injuries in this country. They too are still suffering today. They are fighting to get justice from the government for the injuries that occurred to them. I can speak on behalf of my own uncle, who in the early 1950s came down with an illness and was given a sulpha drug that made him blind. A seven-year-old boy was turned blind for the rest of his life, and he was given no support by the government. My grandmother had no support from the government for the drugs that were given to him. He's battled through life. He's got a law degree, having done it through braille, and I'm very proud of him. It sickens me, the way that people in this country and are treated by government and that politicians, who are meant to protect the people, refuse to acknowledge the damage that they have done to Australians who thought that they were doing the right thing. They were told the vaccine was safe and effective. They were told that there was going to be a vaccine injury scheme that would protect them and look after them if they were injured by that vaccine, and that is not the case. Just yesterday I spoke to a person injured by the vaccine. We actually had to turn the lights off in the office because he couldn't keep his eyes open from the brightness of the light. He's not actually applying through the vaccine injury scheme, I should add; he's applying through Comcare because he worked for the Australian health department, and they are gaslighting their own employee. If we aren't here to protect the people, what exactly are we here for? The whole point of a liberal democracy is to protect the individual and their families from the unrestrained authority of the big end of town. Whether it's the health bureaucracies, big corporations or whatever, we are meant to protect the people. Let's talk about the big corporations. Let's talk about the fines that these pharmaceutical companies have paid over the years. In 2012 GlaxoSmithKline paid a fine of $3 billion. It was a criminal fine for off-label promotion and failure to disclose safety data. There were civil fines for paying kickbacks to physicians making false and misleading statements. Our good friends Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in 2009 for off-label promotion and kickbacks. In 2013 Johnson & Johnson were fined for off-label promotion and kickbacks. Eli Lilley in 2009 were fined for off-label promotions. Abbott Laboratories, in 2012, were fined $1.5 billion for off-label promotion. You can look up on Wikipedia the 20 biggest fines by pharmaceutical companies. The bottom one tops out at $345 million for a similar thing: Medicare fraud kickbacks. If you look at it all, you see it's all kickbacks and misleading information. The pharmaceutical industry have a history of putting their wallets in front of people's health. We know that they're driven by the monetary incentives, and there's nothing wrong with that. We all have to put bread on the table. We understand that. But you should not trade out the safety of people when you do this. Drugs have been a wonderful thing. I accept that they have increased the standard of living in the Western world and other parts of the world. A hundred years ago, your average life expectancy was around 50 or 55. Today average life expectancy is 80. We have made much medical progress in that time, and that is something to be commended. If we want to make sure that we keep trust in our medical system, we have to protect those who have been injured by medical products, and in the last three years we have seen gaslighting and double standards for the people injured by vaccines. I'll touch on the gaslighting first. It is a disgrace. They've been labelled antivaxxers, cookers—you name it. They rolled up their sleeves. They believed in the government and the information the government gave them, thinking they were doing the right thing, and now the government has kicked them to the kerb. That is not good enough. Then there are the double standards. When it came to COVID—heaven forbid!—anyone with a sniffle would have to go down and quarantine. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to protect people from COVID, which I accept is a risk, like any virus, especially to older and sick people. But for the majority of the working-age people who were healthy it wasn't a risk, and it didn't warrant the unnecessary lockdowns and fearmongering that took place. As a result of that, we've had massive implications for other parts of the health system, and I'll just elaborate on that. The Australian government bought 300 million doses of various types of COVID vaccines whilst at the same time saying that two doses were enough to protect you. Twenty-five million people times two is 50 million people. You could have bought three doses per person and had 75 million doses—a quarter of what we bought—for $8 billion. If we had bought a quarter of what we bought, we would have saved $6 billion. The Sunshine Coast University Hospital was built in the last decade. It cost $1.8 billion. We wasted the equivalent amount of money that could have built three Sunshine Coast university hospitals. All of this money that was spent on the COVID overreach—not all of it; I'll take some of that back. A large part of it could have been spent on front-end services. It could have been spent on more nurses, more doctors and more ambulances, because, heaven knows, just about every state in this country is suffering under the weight of the mismanagement of the health system. I'm led to believe that. I'm shooting from my hip here, but I certainly know that's the case in Queensland. We have got ambulance ramping that is out of control. In my own home state, we have maternity wards closing down. There was an article in the Courier Mail a few years ago that said that, in towns where there was no maternity ward, the number of deaths per thousand births was 23 versus six in towns with a maternity ward. Now, the difference of 17 per thousand is probably higher than the death rate from COVID. Imagine if we had kept that $6 billion, plus the other billions we spent on masks and PCR testing! I seem to recall that the Western Australian government spent $600 million just on PCR tests. How many maternity wards could that have built? How many frontline nurses could that have paid for? All I'm asking for here today is to honour the recommendation by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee that came out earlier this week in reply to Senator Babet's inquiry into the vaccine indemnity scheme. This is the thing—this is coming off the back of the inquiry that looked into why pharmaceutical companies are given indemnities. I've just read out some of the fines that these pharmaceutical companies have been forced to pay because of the deceptive, misleading and unethical conduct they engage in. Yet we roll over and give them an indemnity. We give them an indemnity, and the least we could ask for is a no-fault compensation scheme, which is the recommendation from the Finance and Public Administration committee—to actually inquire into the vaccine injury scheme and to have a no-fault scheme. There is a reason why that matters. I've got an insider from the TGA who played a big role in designing this scheme. I can't say his name. He's left it now because he doesn't want to lose his job if he goes public. The whole point of that scheme was that, once an injured person got a specialist to say that the person was injured by the vaccine, he or she would be entitled to compensation. That is not happening. What is happening is that Services Australia makes these people wait, on average, 297 days to get a decision. Many of these people can no longer work. They are seriously ill. They have to do all the legwork of trying to book in to see a specialist, a cardiologist, a rheumatologist or whatever, and that takes a lot of work. It's very expensive. They've got to get MRIs or something to back up their claim, and then they're basically being neglected. What's happening though is Services Australia make these people jump that hurdle. Services Australia then refer it back to the TGA. And the TGA doctors are turning around and saying, 'We are overriding the decision of the specialists who actually examined the patient.' My insider tells me that these doctors at the TGA are not qualified to be overriding specialists, and I believe that. If you haven't examined the patient, who are you to say this isn't actually a vaccine injury? How would you know? I had a discussion this morning with some scientists who said, 'Basically, you'll never know while a person's living because you can't take tissue samples from living people.' So we are operating in the dark here with regard to our ability to examine what's really going on as a result of these vaccine injuries. But let me tell you this: these people should not be made to suffer for following the advice of the government that said they would be protected. And when you look at the TGA's track record on this, there have been 1,000 reported and, most importantly, the box that was ticked was 'suspected deaths from the vaccine'. How many did the TGA recognise? Fourteen. Over 60 per cent of those reports came from health professionals. When you press the TGA and you say to them, 'Can you actually prove that this death wasn't from the vaccine,' they say, 'No, we can't.' They are playing semantics: when they say there have only been 14 deaths from the vaccine what they're saying is, 'We can only prove there were 14 deaths,' but they haven't examined the body. Unfortunately, in many cases, the coroner didn't get to examine the body either, despite that being the advice from at least one state government. The Queensland state government—you have to get on the 'way back' machine, because they've pulled this down—said if you suspected a person had died from the vaccine you need to refer it to the coroner. That's not happening, but it should have happened because there was an increase of 10,000 actual deaths in the eight months after the rollout of the vaccine, from May 2021 through to December 2021—before COVID was widespread in the community. The TGA cannot explain that either. There is plenty of information. We need to protect the people. I urge you to support this motion today and protect the people injured from the vaccine. 11:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government will not be supporting this motion. On Monday, the report from the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee was tabled in this Senate. The committee report includes the recommendation that the Australian government review the COVID-19 vaccine claim scheme and consider the merits of a national no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme as part of the National Immunisation Strategy. We had that recommendation from the committee tabled just three days ago. This motion before us seeks a referral to the community affairs committee for another inquiry for Senators Rennick and Antic to pursue their agenda regarding the COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccine program. And we saw that in Senator Rennick's dissenting report from the committee inquiry, where he says: … the argument that there was a public health emergency— associated with COVID-19— is overblown. Covid-19 was of little risk to healthy people of working age population. There was no justification to roll out a novel vaccine that had next to no testing, especially longitudinal on people that had very little risk from Covid. The government does not feel that we should feed into this irresponsible view and, in considering this motion, we should consider the remarks of the committee report, which found: The benefits of immunisation are vital in protecting the health of the Australian population. The committee is unanimous in its view that passage of this bill would have a severely detrimental effect on Australia's future capacity to manage any future pandemic, and consequently on the health of the population. This is because Australia's pandemic response would be inhibited by an inability to source and secure the timely provision of life-saving vaccines in an emergency by a prohibition on the granting of indemnities. The committee then says: … it is clear to the committee that the granting of an indemnity for legal risk in an emergency does not compromise the efficacy and robustness of the vaccine assurance, monitoring, and regulatory processes undertaken by the— TGA. It goes on to say: … the committee considers it incumbent on government to ensure that any vaccine injury claims scheme offers timely, easily accessed, and adequate compensation to persons suffering vaccine injury. Further, the committee considers it prudent to take seriously any risk of increased vaccine hesitancy associated with the view that the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme, or indeed any vaccine compensation scheme, is overly onerous. With new strains of COVID-19 continuing to emerge and the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme scheduled to end on 30 September 2024, the committee considers it appropriate to review the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme and consider the merits of a National no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme as part of the National Immunisation Strategy. As this report was tabled on Monday, the recommendation will be considered by the government before we provide our response and there is no need for another inquiry by the community affairs committee. 11:55 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland In my introductory remarks I would like to say how much I deeply admire the commitment that my friend Senator Rennick has made to discuss with people and to be there for people who have suffered vaccine injuries. I doubt if there's anyone in this place who has spent more time talking to some of Australia's most vulnerable Australians who have gone through very, very difficult personal times because they're in that cohort of Australians who have suffered from the side-effects of vaccines. When Senator Rennick speaks on these issues, he speaks with a good heart and from a place of deep conviction. Others may disagree with him, but in the best traditions of a representative democracy, Senator Rennick, I believe, has made sure that he's always been available to people in need and people who have sought to tell their story, and I really, deeply applaud Senator Rennick for that. I consider Senator Rennick a dear friend and I greatly admire the time and effort he's put into that. Australians have suffered from vaccine injuries; there's no question about that. The objective evidence is to that effect, and the whole purpose as to why we established a vaccine claims scheme was to provide those Australians with a simple and easy process to claim compensation as a result of that. When this country was facing the circumstances that we were facing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority of Australians decided to become vaccinated, and those Australians who suffer injuries as a result of that vaccination are entitled to a no-fault compensation scheme which recognises any injuries they've suffered. In a response to a question on notice, the TGA reported that, 'as at 31 August 2023, there had been 3,805 claims submitted to the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme: 199 claims had been approved, 1,252 claims had been deemed not payable, 729 claims had been withdrawn, 1,625 claims were in progress'. The fact that, as at 31 August 2023, nearly 200 claims had been approved through the process is objective evidence that there is a cohort of Australians who have suffered from vaccine injuries and a cohort of Australians who've already had their compensation claims recognised. But there are hundreds and hundreds of other Australians who are still in the process, so there is an issue with respect to vaccine injuries and there are people seeking assistance through the no-fault compensation scheme. The objective evidence is to that effect. It can't be disputed. Two things drew my attention, and I say this as someone who practised as a lawyer before coming into this place. Firstly, it takes 297 days for a claim to be processed. That is nine, nearly 10, months for a claim to be processed. Secondly, it says 'including up to six months for claimants to consider a deed of settlement'. That immediately raises the concern in my mind, which I would take the advantage of looking into if this reference was approved, as to what is in that deed of settlement. To what extent are people forgoing rights? To what extent do they have to commit to confidentiality obligations? I don't know, but it does make me somewhat concerned that vulnerable Australians in this position are being required to enter into a deed of settlement, a formal legal document, when they are in a very grave position of vulnerability, be it because of their health or their financial situation. The objective evidence is that there is a need for this scheme and that is why it was established under the previous government. Senator Rennick did have an input into some of the financial thresholds. There are people who have suffered vaccine injuries who are having recourse to the scheme. But 297 days for claims to be processed causes me some concern, and the whole concept of a deed of settlement being required to be entered into by Australians who are in desperate straits in some instances it also causes me concern, so I think that merits an inquiry. Also we do have to appreciate that when we look at this proposed reference, it is extraordinarily objectively worded. It is not pre-guessing or assuming what the results of the reference will be. I will read the terms of the reference so those in the gallery can hear the terms of what is being proposed for a Senate inquiry to look into this. It says: The current Federal Government's COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Claims Scheme, with reference to: a. the eligibility criteria— so is the scheme making sure that we capture everyone who is legitimately suffered a vaccine injury— b. the time in processing the claimants' applications— I have spoken about the 297 days— c. differences between Therapeutic Goods Administration assessments and specialist assessment reports included in vaccine injury claims— so to what extent does someone who makes a claim with the support of a specialist report having their claim rejected because of another medical specialist having a different view and how is that all working in practice— d. the adequacy of the compensation in relation to the person's injuries, mental health and lost earnings; e. the risks that inadequate support and compensation for vaccine related injuries may exacerbate vaccine hesitancy; and f. any other related matters. These are quite fair and objective terms of reference. They don't pre-judge the findings. Based on the objective evidence, I can't see why we would not have this inquiry, especially—and I emphasise this—because we are dealing with a cohort of Australians who have heightened vulnerability health-wise and finance-wise, and I think that places greater obligation upon us to consider this reference. I am chairing an inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee into proposed terms of reference for a COVID-19 royal commission referred by Senator Roberts. We have heard during the course of that inquiry from different stakeholders, including those representing people who have suffered vaccine injuries. I want to commend in this debate the work that is being done by Dr Rado Faletic and Ms Rachel O'Reilly. Dr Faletic shared his experience of his vaccine injury. Dr Faletic has a PhD in hypersonic physics, so that makes him a rocket scientist, and a smarter man than I would ever hope to be. He had a vigorous professional life. He had side-effects after the first vaccine he received. When he got the second one, he said: 'Over the following months I experienced many disabling and painful neurological, cardiac and systemic symptoms, affecting my capacity work and even just getting through the day. I could not walk for more than a few metres without feeling like my body was about to shut down. I was constantly bumping into things on my left-hand side. I could not recall words. I could not engage in conversations for longer than two minutes before my brain could no longer process what was being said to me. My emotions became unstable, fluctuating from the inability to feel any emotion to extreme emotions like suicidal ideation and intense rage, and, no, this was not due to the stress of my situation.' This is a highly trained professional who has shared his story and has opened up about the vulnerability he's now suffering as someone who's gone through a vaccine injury. He's now advocating on behalf of other Australians who've suffered vaccine injuries. I say to the senators: this isn't about Senator Rennick. It's not about Senator Scarr, Senator Roberts, Senator Cadell, Senator Brown, Senator Grogan, Senator McDonald or Senator Sterle; it's not about any of us. It's about the Australians who've suffered a vaccine injury and it's about making sure that the no-fault vaccine compensation scheme is working as we intended it to work. When objective evidence is presented that talks about delays and that talks about denials of claims—we're receiving reports from Australians who are vulnerable in terms of health and finances, asking us to look into this—I think we've got a positive duty to do that. I think that's the job of this place as a house of review. I'm very happy to support this motion and commend this reference to the Senate. 12:06 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland There have been more than 25,000 deaths. That's more than 25,000 homicides. At Senate estimates hearings last November I produced an independent analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data. It showed the unexplained increase in deaths for the period 2022-23—population adjusted, excluding COVID and respiratory deaths—was 13 per cent. The Australian Bureau of Statistics provided data using a different methodology, which agreed closely with my figure. An increase of 13 per cent above baseline on 195,000 deaths in 2022-23 means 25,000 more Australians died than expected. Did the novel COVID injections cause all of these deaths? While highly likely, it's possible they did not. Were enough of these deaths caused by the injections to be of serious concern and to support an inquiry? Definitely yes. A common argument against having an inquiry is the issue that increases in mortality are due to many different causes—cancer, dementia, cardiac conditions and diabetes—so there can't possibly be a single cause. An inquiry would need to explain this. In the absence of an inquiry, I'll advance a theory from many credible medical authorities. I'll do that in a minute. The COVID products are not vaccines because they don't stop people getting COVID. They don't stop people passing it on to someone else. I call them injections or jabs. The jabs include a segment of messenger RNA, which has the purpose of splicing a new segment into our DNA, which produces a protein to create an antibody to COVID-19. This raises the possibility that disease can be prevented, using mRNA techniques to get our bodies producing antibodies to stop cancer and disease in their tracks. This opportunity to play God has proven so intoxicating that many in our health industry have fallen for it; mRNA jabs are being defended with religious fervour. As with any religious zealotry, those who ask difficult questions like, 'Why are so many people suddenly dying?' are being treated in a way that is an afront to parliamentary process and civil government. This issue is life or death. It needs to be above honest debate and scrutiny. One potential explanation for increased mortality rates across a wide range of conditions is a scandal known as 'plasmidgate'. This is technical, so I'll use plain language and apologise to any specialist vaccinologists listening. Messenger RNA is too fragile to use in a vaccine. To protect the RNA sequence from damage, these COVID jabs use a new technique, wrapping each one in a protective coating called a lipid nanoparticle. This keeps the RNA intact on its journey from your arm to the nucleus of every cell in your body, where the coating helps the RNA enter the cell and bind with your existing DNA. Remember, there are billions of mRNA particles in every jab. The manufacturing process is not clean. Fragments of DNA are being picked up in the manufacturing process and getting coated in that protective layer as well, a coating that stops your body expelling the fragment. These fragments are coming from the E. coli bacteria, a derivative being used to grow on the mRNA. Yes, they're using modified E. coli bacteria as the growing medium for the mRNA in these jabs. The clinical trials for this product were conducted using the previous growing method, albumen from eggs. That's the clinical trials. Yet that was far too slow for Pfizer, claiming the so-called speed of science. So, after the clinical trials were tested, with a conventionally propagated product, Pfizer switched it out for one grown using the much faster E. coli bacteria method. Has E. coli ever been used before as a medium to grow on a vaccine? No, it hasn't. No, it has not. Was any safety testing done? Well, that would be every person that has had done the jab. That's where the testing was done, if you've had the jab. Now people are dying, and the mRNA vaccine zealots are ignoring the outcome. The crime of the century is that the Australian public have been injected with DNA from E. coli bacteria that was wrapped up in a protective coating and delivered into the nucleus of every cell in your body. It gets worse. The latest peer reviewed published data on this shows that, in a third of cases, the cell will not produce the antibody intended against COVID and instead will produce some other antibody—in a third of cases. It's a process called frame shifting, which means the mRNA does not present itself to your DNA strand correctly and accordingly combines with your DNA in an unintended way before producing an unintended protein antibody. This is going on in people's bodies right now. What does that mutant protein do to your system? Nobody knows. Here's the final crime. These mutant proteins are not created in one-third of people; they're created in one-third of cells, meaning that everyone who was injected with a COVID product has a third of their cells now producing mutant proteins. We don't know what harm that will cause. The harm varies from person to person. Are these proteins now resting in our brain? Are they? We know it can cross the blood-brain barrier into our brains. Are these proteins resting in our hearts, in our livers, in female ovaries, in male testes? Is it turning off our body's natural cancer defence, resulting in turbo cancers? Highly likely. These are questions, not statements. When some of the most highly qualified medical professionals on this topic are asking questions, there is no excuse not to be investigating. It's time to treat the zealots of the religion of mRNA as the maniacs they are. They played God and they harmed people. They killed tens of thousands of people. They committed homicide—homicidal maniacs. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this motion from Senator Rennick, which will find out how bad the damage is, and, once again, I call on the Senate to demand a royal commission into the crime of the century. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rennick be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:18]
(The President—Senator Lines)

24 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 31 NOES 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. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 36 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024 36

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024

First Reading 36 12:21 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania 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 36 12:21 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Albanese Labor Government is committed to a child support scheme that ensures adequate and fair financial support for all children of separated parents. This bill is a technical amendment to ensure the child support scheme operates as it is intended. In the context of 2023 AAT proceedings, Services Australia identified concerns that 2018 amendments to child support and family assistance legislation are not operating as intended due to unclear drafting. Instead of strengthening interim period provisions, the 2018 amendments unintentionally limited the circumstances where an interim period can apply. Under the legislation as currently enacted, an interim period can only apply at the start of a new child support assessment or Family Tax Benefit claim, where the breach of the care arrangement occurs at that point. In February 2024, the Federal Court confirmed that the 2018 amendments did not operate as intended and observed there is an urgent need for legislative reform to simplify this. Through this bill, the Government is taking action to quickly resolve the legislative uncertainty and restore Parliament's intent from the 2018 bill. Passage of this bill is essential to ensure child support legislation clearly outlines where interim periods can apply. Interim periods are an important and longstanding feature of the child support scheme. Child support payments and Family Tax Benefit entitlements are based on a parent's percentage of care for a child. Ordinarily, this is based on each parent's actual care of the child. However, where a written care arrangement is in place for a child—such as a court order—a parent's percentage of care can be based on that written care arrangement for an interim period. Interim periods are important because they encourage compliance with written care arrangements. Interim periods prevent a parent who is withholding care of a child from financially benefitting through higher child support and FTB payments. They also ensure the other parent is not financially worse off through higher child support obligations and lower FTB payments. Interim periods encourage participation in family dispute resolution. For an interim period to apply, the person with reduced care must take reasonable steps to have the care arrangement complied with. For example, trying to work with the other parent to reinstate the care arrangement, seeking assistance from a dispute resolution service, starting legal proceedings or notifying the police that the child has been taken without consent. It can be a lengthy and expensive process for parents to resolve parenting matters through the family law system. Where they have done so, the orders made reflect the court's decision about what is in the best interests of a child. The orders should be followed unless special circumstances exist. Importantly, existing rules will continue to apply to protect parents and children who are at risk of violence or where there are child welfare concerns. If a care arrangement has changed due to a fear of violence or neglect, Services Australia is able to ensure the child support and FTB payments are based on actual care and an interim period would not apply. The bill clarifies provisions in child support and family assistance legislation to ensure interim periods are available in a broader range of circumstances, consistent with long-standing policy and practice. While not known as an 'interim period', child support assessments have been able to reflect the contravention of a court order or parenting plan since 1998. Interim periods in their current form have existed since 2010, when child support and family assistance legislation were aligned to have the same care determinations. The bill includes retrospective provisions to ensure past decisions made since 2018 and in line with the intended policy are legally valid. This is important to minimise the impact on parents and carers who may otherwise be financially disadvantaged by having these decisions disrupted. I commend the bill. 12:22 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The coalition will be supporting the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024. This bill is a technical amendment seeking to ensure the child support scheme operates as intended. The coalition supports this urgent change because it provides legislative certainty to participants in the child support scheme by ensuring the legislation clearly outlines where interim periods can apply and how the child support scheme operates as intended. This bill amends the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, the child support act, and A New Tax System (Family Assistance Act) 1999, or the family assistance act, to restore the intended operation of interim period provisions for determining a person's percentage of care for a child. The bill proposes technical amendments to support the administration of the child support and family assistance schemes as intended under the legislation. The bill will restore interim period arrangements to address the unintended consequence of the protecting children act. It will provide that interim periods are available as they are intended to be, consistent with the longstanding policy in the child support and family assistance schemes to encourage carers for a child to comply with a written carer arrangement where one is in place. The bill will also protect the validity of certain interim period determinations that were made between the commencement of the protecting children act amendment and the commencement of the amendments to be made by this bill. The bill includes retrospective provisions to ensure past decisions made since 2018 and in line with the intended policy are valid. This is important to minimise the impact on parents and carers who may otherwise be financially disadvantaged by having those decisions disrupted. The bill is a technical amendment to ensure that the child support and family assistance schemes operate as intended under the legislation. 12:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak briefly to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024. The Greens support this urgent reform, which fixes previously poor drafting and clarifies when interim periods are available. These interim periods are periods when the actual amount of care of a child doesn't reflect the written agreement for what it will be. I want to note that I'm really pleased to see that there are existing rules to protect parents and children who are at risk of family and domestic violence that will continue to apply in these so-called interim periods. This means that, if a care arrangement has changed due to a fear of violence, Services Australia is able to ensure that child support and family tax benefit B payments are based on actual care and that the parent at risk of violence will receive an appropriate amount of financial support. I thought it was really important to just reassure anyone listening that those protections still apply despite this technical fix to the interim period definition. While this urgent reform is needed, the child support system is in desperate need of so many other reforms, specifically on the weaponisation of child support by perpetrators of coercive control and other forms of family and domestic violence. I hear countless examples of single mothers incurring the family tax debt while on child support because the other parent has failed to lodge their tax return. Likewise, there are many times that a parent self-reports a reduced income, without the need to provide evidence, in order to minimise their child support liability. In fact, one-third of parents in the child support scheme currently have a debt. Collectively, there is $1.7 billion of child support owed to single parents across Australia, and most folk would know that it's mostly single mums. That's over 200,000 people with an outstanding tax return. Critically, calculating child support relies on having accurate figures. These debts that are owed are causing parents, especially single mum families, distress and hardship, and many people are already feeling that, because poverty and homelessness already disproportionately impact women and children. I wrote to the minister about this very issue last year. I was contacted by a Queensland constituent who wanted to remain anonymous. She had separated from an emotionally and financially abusive ex-partner. She has primary custody of their kids, and she raised concerns with the child support agency six years prior that her former partner was underreporting his income for child support purposes. The child support agency initially refused to investigate her allegations unless she agreed to provide evidence. So that's her having to provide evidence of his income, not him having to provide evidence of his actual income. And the child support agency advised that they'd be required to present that evidence to her former partner. She made it clear that her ex-partner was controlling and could be a risk to her and their children if he knew that she had provided evidence to the child support agency. She was subsequently advised that, where there was a history of family and domestic violence, security measures could be put in place to protect her against her former partner knowing that she'd disclosed evidence against him. On that basis, she agreed to provide the evidence. However, after a very long delay, the child support agency advised that there was no way to avoid disclosing the evidence or its source to her ex-partner, so she was given a bum steer, and her safety was disregarded. She reluctantly agreed to the evidence being disclosed so that the reassessment could proceed. Based on that evidence, CSA ultimately agreed to adjust her ex-partner's income up by nearly $80,000. It was still less than half of what she believed he was earning but significantly more than he was reporting. If she had felt safe to disclose evidence initially, her children could have been supported by much higher payments from their father for a much longer time. She now continues to fear that she and her children will be at risk when her ex-partner is advised of the reassessment and that he'll continue to underreport his income. This story is just one of so many similar stories that my office has heard. I note that a recent report by Swinburne University of Technology called Financial abuse: the weaponisation of child support in Australia confirms that this situation is not uncommon. That report outlines the prevalence of underreporting or falsification of income by child support payers and the ways in which neglecting to submit tax returns is used as a tool of financial control. The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children recognises that victims-survivors who are reliant on a former partner for financial support are particularly vulnerable to ongoing abuse. This is not, unfortunately, the only problem with the system. Stakeholders and many mums also tell me that the rate of child support is viewed as unrealistically low and that it is also an unreliable form of support. Women are frustrated with the inability to budget and with the normalisation of a dysfunctional system. The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce recommended removing the child support maintenance income test from the family tax benefit part A calculations to establish certainty of FTB A payments for financially vulnerable families and to prevent child support being used as tool of financial abuse. I want to see some action on that from this government, along with all of the other Women's Economic Equality Taskforce recommendations. That task force also recommended that the single-parenting payment be restored back up to age 16. Remember it always was 16 and then former prime minister Gillard slashed it down to the age of eight on the day she gave the misogyny speech. Thankfully, this government belatedly restored it—not up to 16; just up to 14. The WEET are saying it should be 16. We agree. It should be 16. It always should have been. It never should have been slashed. There are so many hurdles—too many—that prevent child support being paid, but many of these are fixable. I'm pleased to see the establishment of the Child Support Expert Panel last month to make recommendations to the Department of Social Services on child support matters. I acknowledge the government do appear to be committed to further reforms in this space, and I really look forward to working with them on those reforms. Single Mother Families Australia has advocated a requirement for income to be lodged and known annually, for child support to be collected and paid and for the loopholes of accepting the minimisation of income to be stopped. The Greens support those asks, and we're ready to expedite any government reforms that do that. 12:31 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 38 12:31 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024 38

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 38 12:35 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania RTOs give people like me, people who didn't go to university, an opportunity to fit into the workforce. When we talk about vocational education, we don't talk enough about the value RTOs hold in the sector. I join most industry stakeholders in being supportive of these changes. These changes will benefit not only students but also employers and industries. I know that it's only a minority of outlaw RTOs that are ruining it for a compliant majority. The bill backs students by calling out the false and misleading conduct of RTOs, providing a safeguard from being subjected to unscrupulous behaviour. It addresses the long overdue need for increased penalties. It weeds out RTOs that have been dormant for 12 months and presents providers from expanding course offerings where they have been operating for less than two years. It also gives the minister the power to determine a class of RTOs that should not be registered because of an unsustainable influx into the VET sector that may result in exploitative behaviour. This change is one I approach with caution. If abused, a blank ticket to suspend a class of RTOs has the potential to disadvantage some providers. However, I also see the need for this power, which is why I will support Senator Cash's amendment to limit the application of that power to 12 months. RTOs are essential to ensuring that people have opportunities to get trained, find a job and stay competitive within their industry. We're struggling with massive skill shortages right now. A strong RTO sector is key to plugging these gaps. The RTO sector brought up a senator for Australia and Tasmania—plus staffers here in Parliament House—and they are very, very good at what they do. RTOs are the backbone of the new way to study. Truckers, farmers, admin people, doctors—through COVID, RTO-trained people were administering COVID tests and helping us get through that dark time. My experience with RTOs is good, but I know not everyone has such positive things to say, and that does make me sad. This bill won't affect RTO providers doing the right thing. But for RTOs that do shonky things, this will pull them into line, benefiting industry, employers, students and maybe some more here in Parliament House. 12:38 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. This bill aims to strengthen quality and integrity in the VET sector. As my colleague Senator Faruqi has set out strongly, the Greens stand here today as a proud party of fully funded public education. Public education is a bedrock of a strong democracy, and students, no matter which stage of education they are in, deserve to have access to high-quality, fee-free education. Teachers from across the sector should expect well-paid, secure jobs. After years of failed regulation, this bill is a welcome first step to try and deter dodgy providers in the sector. But although it is welcome, the rot in our education system extends far beyond what this bill sets out to remedy. As Senator Faruqi has said, the government must prioritise a truly free, quality education sector. This is particularly important after seeing years of cuts to the TAFE system. TAFE serves a critical role in the education system. TAFE and VET are essential for providing an excellent pathway for young people who know that what will work for them is a trade. It respects and acknowledges that the pathway for every person is different. What works for some won't work for others. It's about trusting young people to make the right decision for themselves. Everyone in Australia should have the opportunity to access the skills and knowledge training that they need to succeed. Free education is transformative. But instead of treating education as such, it's been turned into a warped moneymaker for companies and corporations. What we really need to be addressing is the cash cow that swells around our education system while classrooms—including those in TAFE—schools, teachers and students miss out. There are many who view public education as big business. In 2016, McKinsey & Company called public education a cash cow. In reality, we have an education industrial complex that sucks money from public schools and the TAFE sector for private interests. We must not allow public education to be bought and sold by these private companies, consultants and some philanthropists who swirl around the system. Instead of focusing on investment in public education for the sake of education, we have seen the rot of neoliberalism embed itself into the institutions. Public schools and TAFEs remain underfunded while the government pours money into the operators who tie themselves to the system. We have entities who make money off the lesson plans, off the training programs, off the testing equipment and off the test administration. At every step of the process, money is pulled from the hands of students, teachers, schools and TAFEs and given over to private operators. We have government entities being driven by the interests of random philanthropists rather than academics. When people with money can simply buy the direction of education in this country, it begs the question of what the endpoint of this process is going to be. Are we headed towards a wholly hollowed-out education system given over to whichever Joe Blow billionaire decides they have a bone to pick with the way maths or English or a trade is being taught? Education must not be linked to profit-making ventures or product placement for whatever lesson plan someone is trying to hawk. It's time for a serious national conversation about the interest backed companies, philanthropists and not-for-profits that are benefiting from the underfunding of public schools and TAFEs. As public schools and TAFEs remain woefully underfunded, it's students, teachers and those institutions that are bearing the brunt. Schooling and TAFE education—education—is a public good. With the cost of education continuing to rise, it is critical for this bleed to stop. This debate doesn't even touch the sides of the exodus of kids from the public system to the private schooling and training sector. Only 1.3 per cent of public schools in Australia receive their bare minimum of funding. Meanwhile, 98 per cent of private schools are overfunded by government, and they continue to charge ever-growing private fees, compounding the inequity. Under Labor and the coalition, elite private schools have for decades been subsidised with billions of dollars of government largesse, while the public system, which is responsible for educating more than 80 per cent of our most disadvantaged kids, has languished. Labor's own review into this school system called out this shocking disparity. Australian parents have sent a clear message to Labor to end school funding inequality, with survey data showing that 70 per cent believe government funding should be stripped from private schools while the public system remains underfunded. Three in five parents, including 48 per cent of private-school parents, believe the Australian school system is designed to benefit wealthier families. And 69 per cent of parents believe that private schools have too much money. It might be worth telling that to some of the overpaid private-school headmasters who seem to display what could only be called a grossly inflated sense of entitlement and self-importance. When you have a private school sucking $82 billion of taxpayer money to prop up their archaic institution, it's worth asking: who is really playing the victim? All of this is taking place after we have seen a decade of decay and rot set into the public school system as well as TAFE. We have seen a decade of decay and rot set into our public schools. We have seen story after story of what this rot has done to education. Buildings are falling apart and are riddled with mould. In both TAFE and our schools, teachers are working incredibly long days and digging into their own pockets to pay for basics. There are unprecedented levels of workload intensification and stress. And, in relation to schools, first-year teachers are questioning their career choice. On Saturday I spoke to a teacher on prepoll in the Brisbane City Council elections, and she told me that she has a first-year team-teaching with her. We're only in March and already that young teacher has said to her that they don't actually think they're going to see out the year. This is being repeated in classroom after classroom after classroom across the country. Highly experienced teachers are also retiring early or transitioning to other careers. I spoke to a union organiser last week, who said that every principal in the Central Queensland region over the age of 50 has an exit plan and that plan does not include retiring as a principal. Kids are prevented from attending field trips and excursions because neither parents nor the schools can afford to send them. We heard that loud and clear in our cost-of-living hearing into education. We are at a critical juncture. Do we continue down this pathway, continuing to watch our public schools and our TAFEs limp along, with millions of young people left behind? Public education is the bedrock of a healthy and vibrant democracy. Quality education is a launching pad for so many terrific and wonderful things. It opens doors, it envelopes kids and young people in a community and it allows them to experiment with their interests. For this reason, every single young person in this wealthy country should be afforded access to a free and high-quality education, be that in early childhood, school, TAFE or university. Yet time and time again we've seen Labor and the coalition fail to show up for our young people. Parents and carers don't have a choice anymore. Either they have to accept that their public school is underfunded and pay between $1,500 and $2,000 to make up the shortfall themselves—in the case of TAFE, we still have young people who have to pay fees—or, in relation to schools, they have to fork out of their pockets to attend private schools or private providers that are fully resourced. In the school sector, we're talking about fees which have gone up by 50 to 80 per cent—so much for funding private schools to make the choice cheaper! Another parent at the inquiry said, 'Why do I have to budget for my kid to be in a public school?' We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and parents need our help. In relation to schools, we can't wait until 2025 and we most certainly can't wait until 2028 and 2029. Our public schools are in crisis. Teachers are leaving in droves. It's time to fully fund our public schools and do it now. Ninety-eight per cent of public schools in the country are underfunded. They have waited over a decade since Gonski. Asking them to wait until 2029 is asking them to wait half that time again. There will be no public school teachers left by then. Every year, public school kids are robbed of $6.6 billion. That means that schools don't have the money to pay for the bare minimum level of staffing and educational resources that they need. Under existing funding arrangements, the federal government meets its 20 per cent commitment, but most states and territories are not paying their 80 per cent share. On current trajectory they still never will, including in WA and the NT, while we keep those accounting tricks in those agreements. We have an absurd situation where the federal government, with vastly more revenue than the states and territories, is chiefly responsible for subsidising the sector that is overfunded. Labor is in power federally and in every mainland state and territory. This is an historically rare opportunity to end a decade of broken pledges and false dawns and deliver on the promise of Gonski once and for all. The Labor government know that they must act on the funding of public schools or join the long list of failed school reformers who came before them. We need to fund our public schools and our TAFEs. In the case of our schools, we can't wait until 2029 for agreements to roll out. We need that money now, at the start of the next National School Reform Agreement—not phased in but now. And you must get rid of the four per cent loophole that is allowing states to continue to underfund their schools by millions of dollars by writing off things like capital depreciation and buses that have absolutely nothing to do with what goes on in a classroom. I know that the government is sick of hearing me bang on about this, but I was one of those teachers who has been waiting for over a decade to see things change. If you don't fully understand the level of crisis that our schools are in, I strongly encourage you to go out there and talk to those teachers and talk to those parents. I'm not sure that, if we have to wait five years for the full funding to roll out, we will have public schools left to fund. 12:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank all senators who've contributed to the debate on this important bill, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. I welcome the opposition's support for the bill and for the Albanese government's work to strengthen integrity and quality in vocational education and training. The measures in this bill will provide the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, better tools to protect students and tackle the minority of providers that are non-genuine or that engage in unscrupulous conduct. Non-genuine and unscrupulous providers tarnish the reputation of the sector, and the bill reinforces that there is no place for them in VET. The minor amendments proposed by the opposition restate the existing operation or are consistent with the operation of the measures as described in the explanatory memorandum. As a result, the government will accept the amendments proposed. The amendments relate to the measures empowering the minister, with the agreement of the state and territory skills ministers, to determine the time limited periods ASQA is not required to, or must not, process or accept initial applications for registration as a registered training organisation. The proposed amendments clarify to the sector that any ministerial determination under this measure will operate for a maximum of 12 months. In the other place, the opposition had originally proposed a 90-day maximum for any determination under this measure. This period would not adequately address potential risks to the students and the health of the VET sector. The opposition has now changed course to propose a 12-month maximum, which is consistent with the maximum period intended by the government. The amendments also detail that ASQA will publish a notice on its website as soon as practicable after the determination is registered, as was intended, and note the existing requirement for relevant instruments and their explanatory statements to be tabled in parliament in accordance with the Legislation Act 2003. Apart from these minor amendments, other measures in the bill to tackle non-genuine and unscrupulous providers remain unchanged. These include the automatic lapsing of an RTO's registration when it has been dormant for 12 months, the requirement for new RTOs to demonstrate quality over two years before extending their course offerings and a fivefold increase in penalties when RTOs engage in egregious conduct in breach of the act. The bill provides us with better powers to remove non-genuine and scrupulous providers who undermine integrity and trust in VET. As a result, the legislation will better support and protect students, industry and the vast majority of RTOs—those genuine providers doing the right thing. Once again, I thank senators for their engagement on this bill, and I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 41 12:56 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2381 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 12 (after line 12), at the end of section 231C, add: Note: Legislative instruments and explanatory statements must be tabled in each House of the Parliament under sections 38 and 39 of the Legislation Act 2003. (2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 12 (after line 29), at the end of section 231D, add: Note: Legislative instruments and explanatory statements must be tabled in each House of the Parliament under sections 38 and 39 of the Legislation Act 2003. (3) Schedule 1, item 22, page 13 (after line 8), at the end of Division 3C, add: 231G Notice of determination must be published on National VET Regulator's website (1) If the Minister makes a determination under section 231C or 231D, the National VET Regulator must, as soon as practicable after the determination is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation, publish on the Regulator's website: (a) a notice that: (i) states that the determination has been registered; and (ii) describes the determination; and (b) a copy of the explanatory statement for the determination. (2) A failure by the National VET Regulator to comply with subsection (1) does not affect the validity of a determination made under section 231C or 231D. I thank the government for acknowledging that they will be supporting both amendments. This amendment seeks to engage with the same new power established by this bill, as does amendment 2380. Whereas that amendment is going to be focused on enshrining a specified time frame, this amendment seeks to increase transparency. This amendment will ensure that, if the minister makes a determination under sections 231C or 231D, the national VET regulator must, as soon as practicable after the determination is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation, publish it on the regulator's website. I also note that this amendment makes it explicit that a copy of any legislative instrument made by the minister under the bill must be delivered to each house of the parliament within six sitting days of that house after the registration of the instrument and, if a copy is not laid before each house of the parliament in accordance with this section, the legislative instrument is repealed immediately after the last day for it to be so laid. This amendment will enshrine increased transparency and ensure that there is greater accountability about any use of the ministerial power established in this bill. As I said in my second reading speech when I was addressing the amendments that we are now moving, the principle that we are operating under is that we obviously expect this power will be rarely used and, as such, when it is used, there should be the highest level of transparency and accountability in relation to that use, based on consultation. Certainly the amendment that we are moving will improve the legislation. As I said, I thank the minister for indicating that the government will support it. 12:58 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales This bill empowers the minister to determine by legislative instrument that the regulator, ASQA, need not, or must not, accept or process initial applications for RTO registration, and this amendment clarifies by an order in legislation that, if a minister exercises this power to suspend RTO applications, they must table a legislative instrument along with an explanatory statement in each house of the parliament. This is due to the operations of sections 38 and 39 of the Legislation Act 2003. Additionally, this amendment requires the national VET regulator to publish on their website a notice describing the determination and a copy of the explanatory statement of determination to suspend the processing of applications for an RTO. For these reasons, these amendments do increase clarity on how the legislation works and they do increase accessibility of information about the minister's suspension of the processing of RTO applications, so the Greens support these amendments. 12:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank Senator Cash for doing her job and mine as well, but I thought I should just put on the record that the government will also be supporting these amendments. Question agreed to. 13:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2380 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 11 (after line 16), after subsection 231C(1), insert: (1A) The day specified in an instrument made under subsection (1) must not be later than 12 months after the day the instrument commences. Note: While an instrument made under subsection (1) cannot be varied to specify a day that is later than 12 months after the instrument commences, the Minister can make another instrument. (2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 11 (after line 25), after subsection 231C(3), insert: (3A) The day specified in an instrument made under subsection (3) must not be later than 12 months after the day the instrument commences. Note: While an instrument made under subsection (3) cannot be varied to specify a day that is later than 12 months after the instrument commences, the Minister can make another instrument. (3) Schedule 1, item 22, page 12 (after line 17), after subsection 231D(1), insert: (1A) The day specified in an instrument made under subsection (1) must not be later than 12 months after the day the instrument commences. Note: While an instrument made under subsection (1) cannot be varied to specify a day that is later than 12 months after the instrument commences, the Minister can make another instrument. This amendment seeks to enshrine a 12-month time limit for any instrument made by the minister which would seek to pause the registration of new registered training organisations. Based on the consultation that we've had, we believe that this is probably the most significant change proposed by this bill. It enables the Minister for Skills and Training to seek to directly control market entry of new registered training organisations. The new power also allows the minister to direct the national VET regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, by legislative instrument to pause the registration of a new registered training organisation. I note that the legislation provides that this does need to be agreed with state and territory skills ministers, nevertheless it is a significantly new power that we are agreeing to in this bill. As I said, the opposition has been out there consulting with the sector, and the minister has had discussions with the shadow minister about how we can improve the legislation. Again, I thank the government for indicating that they will support the amendment, as the minister said in his speech. The first one was passed to ensure transparency, and this one is now being passed to put in place the time limit. In terms of the amendment though, we will be seeking to mandate that a determination to pause the registration of a new training organisation be in place for a defined period of time. The reason that we are doing that is to ensure, again, that it does not become a de facto ban. We wanted any pause to be no longer than 90 days. The government, during the negotiations, had said that their preference was for a 24-month period. Again, based on negotiations, the government and the opposition have come to the agreement that we could settle on a one-year time frame. I think, after working with the government, the amendment does now improve the legislation, and I thank the Senate for its support. 13:02 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales This bill empowers the minister to determine by legislative instrument that the regulator, ASQA, need not or must not accept or process initial applications for RTO registration for a period specified in the instrument. The bill currently places no maximum time limit on that period. This amendment limits to a maximum of 12 months the period that the minister can suspend the processing or acceptance of RTO registration applications, and, if the minister seeks to suspend applications for a period of time longer than 12 months, they would need to table another legislative instrument. This does ensure parliamentary scrutiny of the minister's power to suspend the processing of RTO applications at least every 12 months, which is an important consideration for the Greens as well. So we do support this, and we support an increase in parliamentary scrutiny of the ministerial discretion. We will be supporting this amendment. 13:03 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will also be supporting the amendment. Question agreed to. 13:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I just have some brief questions now in relation to the bill. The amendments that have now passed will ensure that the pause, as we said, can only be in place for 12 months. In terms of the actual time frame, how will the length of time that the pause is in place be decided? Or should I ask this: will it be decided by ASQA or the minister? 13:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The bill requires that we consult with ASQA and state and territory ministers before making a determination. 13:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I confirm that it is the minister that makes the determination but after the consultation with, as you said, the state and territory ministers and ASQA? 13:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'd probably expand on that and say 'reach agreement with the state and territory ministers'. 13:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In that process, how will the length of time that the pause is in place be decided by ASQA? What are the relevant factors for determining it? 13:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We would work with ASQA to determine the appropriate circumstances, but they would be on a case-by-case basis. 13:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The minister has also stated, 'The determination may apply to one or more classes of applications.' Can I get clarity about the definition? What do you mean by a class of application? So, for example, could an entire industry be treated as a class of application, or is it narrower than that? Are you able to give an example of a class of application? 13:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It would be determined on the risk that would be identified by ASQA and therefore would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 13:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That's how it's determined, but what is the definition of a class of applications? As I said, could an entire industry be treated as a class? 13:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think classes of courses would be determined, but it would ultimately be advice from ASQA that would determine that. 13:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Classes of courses—I understand that completely. And then you've said, 'But ultimately it will be determined by advice from ASQA.' Does that mean that at this stage there's no parameter around what a class of application is, and it is literally on the advice of ASQA, so, in one case, ASQA may say that there's a class of courses that are to be defined as a class of application, which then means that it could be an entire industry? I'm trying to work out what the parameters of 'class of application' are. Are there any parameters around that at this point in time, or is it that literally anything could be and that it will be worked out on the basis of advice coming from ASQA? 13:09 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The class determination, in our view, would enable us to be more nuanced in how we determine an outcome. 13:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If the answer is, 'We don't know,' I can accept that as an answer, but I don't think we're quite getting to where the question is going. You said it allows you to be more nuanced in your outcome. I'll put another scenario to you to try and understand the parameters of 'class of application'. As I said, I understand classes of courses. I can absolutely understand how that could become a class of application. Could you then define a class of applications as all new private RTOs? Is there a parameter in relation to that? 13:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland They would be determined on a case-by-case basis, as determined by the regulator and also working in conjunction with the minister. 13:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I understand that then—no parameters. It is case by case, as you say, working in conjunction with ASQA and then as determined by the minister, because the minister is the one that has the ultimate decision-making power. Does the minister have to accept the advice of ASQA? 13:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We have to operate in consultation with ASQA. 13:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can you be slightly more definitive. My understanding is that what you've said, in answer to my question, is no. Working in consultation never means that you have to accept the advice. Does the minister have to accept the advice of ASQA? If ASQA says, 'This is a class of application,' does the minister have to accept the advice, or can the minister listen and say, 'Thank you for that; however'—and put in place a different class of application? 13:11 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland ASQA's advice is a key component, but the minister would make the determination, along with his state and territory counterparts. 13:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Is there anything in the legislation that would stop you putting in place a class of application for all new RTOs, therefore pausing new registrations across the board? Is there any express provision that says that can't occur? 13:12 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I don't think we'd go to hypothetical situations like that. How they would be determined is a case-by-case basis, with information provided by the regulator to the minister. 13:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Putting aside the hypothetical, I ask: is there anything in the legislation that prevents the minister from stating that all new RTOs are a class of application? 13:12 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The legislation gives the minister the ability to identify risks to the sector and, as part of that, take on board advice from the regulator and also state and territory ministers. 13:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In terms of the state and territory skills ministers' role, is this through the National Cabinet-level body? 13:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It's through the Skills And Workforce Ministerial Council. 13:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia How will they provide their agreement to the use of the new power? What's the process? Is the ultimate way they do that going to be worked through? For example, would this have to be done in a meeting of the ministerial council? Could it be done by letters? Could it be done by correspondence? Could it be agreed in one of the telephone hook-ups they have? 13:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is it is the processes under the act, and they would have to agree to the words that are in the determination. 13:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In terms of the agreement, is it a simple majority, or is it a unanimous agreement? What occurs if states disagree? Each state, as we know, has its own vote. That includes the federal minister, who has one vote. What will occur if states disagree with the federal minister? Is it a simple majority, or is it by unanimous agreement? And what is going to occur if the states disagree with the federal minister? 13:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It is a majority decision, and, if states disagreed, we would take on board that feedback, as part of any decision made through the ministerial body. 13:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Obviously, I'm a Western Australian senator, so this is relevant both to my state and to Victoria. Could there arise a situation where the federal minister seeks agreement from his state and territory colleagues, the pause is put in place—so that's fine; the process there has worked—but registrations continue to be allowed in Victoria and Western Australia, given they have their own accrediting authorities? 13:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland This applies only to entities registered under this act. 13:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia If I could, I will again turn to the role of ASQA, in terms of what the role of ASQA is in this. What is the mechanism by which ASQA would provide their view to the minister with respect to recommending the ceasing of processing of applications? Just to give you some guidance, does it have to be written? Could it be verbal advice? Is there going to be a formal reporting requirement established, or is it just going to be ad hoc? And who within ASQA will make the call that a threshold has actually been met to call on the minister to exercise the power? 13:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The process isn't set out in the act. It would be done on a case-by-case basis as determined by ASQA. 13:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is understood. So it is not set out in the act; it is ASQA themselves. When do you envisage ASQA will have this process put in place, and will they need to provide the minister with a copy of the process so that the minister knows that the process has been gone through correctly? 13:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland ASQA are an independent authority, so they would determine the process that they go through, but they would be required to operate within the act on this. 13:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In terms of the understanding of the threshold that would be required for the minister to direct the regulator to cease accepting registrations under the new power, can you just define what a 'considerable' influx of applications is? For example, how many would that need to be? 13:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Again, that would be determined on a case-by-case basis, with the element of risk determined by ASQA. 13:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, there's no actual answer to that. It's on case-by-case basis, on the element of risk. In terms of a little bit more specificity, could it be a proportion compared to normal rates? I'm just trying to understand what the actual threshold is. You say a 'considerable' influx of applications. Could that be five? One might say that 'considerable' is not necessarily defined as five. How are you actually setting that threshold? 13:19 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'm trying to be helpful. It would be determined by ASQA, based on the risk to the sector. I imagine they'd be using their experience and judgement in regard to that. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 46 13:20 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That the bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023 46

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

Second Reading 46 13:21 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to make a contribution on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023, which operates to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to alter the rates of tariffs on certain goods in line with Australia's international agreements and interest. I'm advised that the bill will fulfil four key functions. First, it will extend existing tariffs on goods from Russia and Belarus. It was the former coalition government who announced on 31 March 2022 that Australia would join like-minded countries in temporarily removing 'most favoured nation' status and imposing additional duty on goods from Russia and Belarus. Ordinarily, goods from Russia and Belarus would be subject to the general rate of custom duty, most commonly five per cent or free. Instead, most goods that are produced or manufactured by Russia and Belarus are subject to a temporary rate of customs duty of 35 per cent in addition to the general rate of customs duty that would have ordinarily applied to the goods. The temporary removal of MFN treatment and the imposition of additional duty was a response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and is necessary for the protection of Australia's essential security interests. Russia's violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity undermines the rules based international order, which is essential to Australia's international, regional and domestic stability and security. Economic measures against Russia and Belarus are a necessary part of the international community's response to the flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations. Secondly, this bill will extend the free rate of tariff on goods from Ukraine. As a demonstration of Australia's ongoing support for the people of Ukraine, who have borne a terrible cost from Russia's brutal invasion of their country, the free rate of customs duty will continue to apply to goods other than alcohol, tobacco, petroleum and fuel products that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine through to 3 July 2024. This measure is aimed at assisting Ukraine's continued participation in international trade and supporting its efforts to uphold territorial integrity in response to Russia's illegal invasion. Thirdly, this bill will set a free rate of customs duty for goods that are imported for use in connection with international sporting events. Australia has a history of providing a free rate of customs duty for items related to important international sporting events. For instance, the Customs Tariff Act provides a free rate of tariff for Olympic medals and similar items. This amendment to the Customs Tariff Act enables the application of concessional treatment where goods are imported for a specified international sporting event. The first event prescribed was the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup. Co-hosting the women's world cup was a huge win for Australian sport, and getting to share in the Matildas' inspirational journey has changed the game for women's sport in our country forever. The retrospective commencement date has the benefit of enabling those who imported such goods from 1 January 2022 to apply for a refund of the import duties that they have paid. Finally, this bill will expand the scope of tariff concession covered in the agreement between the government of Australia and the European Space Agency. The European Space Agency is currently undertaking an expansion of its facility in Western Australia. I'm not sure of the pronunciation of the new ground station, so I'm not going to attempt to say it here. It's for one of three deep space stations and is in the European Space Agency's tracking station network. The other two are located in Spain and Argentina. The expansion will include a new 35-metre diameter deep space antenna for communicating with various space science missions and a biomass calibration transponder to support the 2024 biomass mission, which aims to provide critical information about forests globally and improve our understanding of the role forests play in the carbon cycle. This amendment will enable the duty-free entry of equipment, material supplies and other property that are for the European Space Agency and for use in the agreed activities under the agreement and that is imported by persons employed or engaged by the European Space Agency. It will also enable the duty-free entry of personal and household goods imported by those persons. Goods for this project and future projects will be eligible for a free rate of customs duty where they are imported on or after 1 December 2022. The coalition supports these sensible amendments to the Customs Tariff Act, noting that the provisions related to Russia and Ukraine are an extension of decisions taken by the former government in 2022. We will be supporting the bill as circulated. 13:25 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Australian Greens will be supporting this bill, but I want to direct the majority of my contributions to the content of the amendment circulated by my colleague Senator Cox, who now occupies the chair. This second reading amendment does a simple yet profound thing. It gives this Senate the opportunity to call explicitly for an end to the export of arms manufactured in Australia to the State of Israel. It is critical that the parliament and indeed the government join with the Australian community in opposing and ending arms sales to the State of Israel, because the State of Israel is right now engaged in acts which include crimes against humanity and war crimes, and which are under investigation for acts of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. In this context, with this evidence before the government and the parliament, it is urgent that arms sales to the State of Israel end. The Australian Labor Party for months has looked the Australian community in the eye and communicated a profound mistruth. The government has misled the Australian people. The government has attempted again and again in this place to gaslight the Australian community. Every single time a Palestinian, an Australian advocate of human rights or a member of the Senate rises in this place and asks the foreign minister or the representative of the defence minister to clearly acknowledge the reality that we are in fact exporting arms currently to the State of Israel and to end that practice, the foreign minister or the representative of the defence minister replies that it is their advice that Australia is not exporting arms to the State of Israel. The facts show this to be a blatant lie. So we are left with absolutely no doubt— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Chisholm, did you have a point of order? Senator Chisholm 39801 I ask that Senator Steele-John withdraw that comment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Steele-John? Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 The facts of the matter do not align— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 I think the request was— Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Sorry. I withdraw. The facts of the matter do not align with the reality, because here is the reality. Your government has greenlit hundreds of export permits to the State of Israel—weapons export permits—including hundreds of thousands in the month of October 2023. Let us go through the list of Australian manufacturers supplying arms to Israel: Currawong Engineering, of Tasmania, supplying engines for Israeli drones; Bisalloy of Queensland, supplying armour for Israeli inventory and fighting vehicles; Varley Australia, providing systems which guide Israeli rockets to their targets; and Rosebank Engineering, the only company in the world that manufactures the mechanism for the F-35 fighter jet which enables it to open its bomb bay doors. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 It being 1.30, we will now move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 48 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Parkinson's Disease 48 13:30 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I rise to speak about Parkinson's disease, a progressive disease that affects movement and mood. While many of us have heard of Parkinson's disease and might know some of the symptoms, general awareness of this condition grew dramatically when actor Michael J Fox was diagnosed with young-onset Parkinson's at just 29 years of age. As a co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Parkinson's, together with Senator Bilyk, I have met many people diagnosed with Parkinson's and heard their stories as they struggle to understand the changes in their lives and bodies. I also have some very dear friends with this condition. I am pleased to advise that there have been recent developments in our understanding of this condition and also how Australian Parkinson's patients can be better supported. Two of those developments are the formation of the national Parkinson's alliance and the upcoming Australian summit to end Parkinson's, which will be held here in this building next Tuesday. The national Parkinson's Alliance membership includes Fight Parkinson's, in Victoria; Neuroscience Research Australia; Parkinson's NSW; Parkinson's Tasmania; researchers from Queensland University of Technology; the Shake It Up Australia Foundation, the University of Tasmania's Menzies Institute for Medical Research; the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research; and Wings for Parkinson's Tasmania. This collection of organisations and individuals from the Australian Parkinson's community has been working hard to develop a national Parkinson's action plan that will help shape future research, policy and care pathways for Australians living with the disease. The Australian summit to end Parkinson's is one of the first steps in forming the action plan, and I look forward to participating in the summit. I also look forward to joining Senator Bilyk at the event, as we host Australia's Governor-General, His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley, who is patron of Shake It Up Australia, and a number of other eminent professionals, all working hard towards ending Parkinson's. Tasmania State Election 48 13:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania It's been 10 long years and the Liberal state government hangs on by a thread in my home state of Tasmania. Tasmanians face a stark choice this Saturday: they can vote for a majority Labor government or four more years of a Liberal minority government that has failed to address the cost of living, access to hospitals, homelessness and electricity price reform. I say to Tasmanians: if the Liberals haven't fixed the cost of living, health, housing, electricity prices or homelessness in 10 years, they never, ever will. Don't give them 14 years to continue to stuff the Tasmanian economy. The Hodgman, Gutwein and, now, Rockliff governments have lurched from crisis to crisis, and now it's a government in full paralysis. During their time in government, they have lost members across the parliament: Brooks, Courtney, Petrusma and Archer, and, of course, we can't forget John Tucker and Lara Alexander. They can't keep them in the Liberal tent, and who knows what thorn they might continue to be after this state election. We need to see Tasmania painted red by voting for a change in government. If you want a change of government, you have to vote for a Labor majority on Saturday. You have to vote 1 to 7 to have a formal vote. It's time, Tasmania—it time to get Tasmania moving again. It's time to stop the ambulance ramping. People need access to health care. They need good education. You need to vote this Saturday for a change in government. If you want to hear more and be up to date with what's happening on Saturday night, as the election results start coming in, then you need to tune into Sky, where we'll be doing the coverage live from here in Canberra. You'll be updated with all the great results that will come in on Saturday. Remember: a formal vote this Saturday in Tasmania is 1 to7. We need to paint Tasmania red. Vote Labor. Workplace Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault 48 13:34 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Today, I want to speak about a group of vulnerable, insecure workers who are standing up for their rights in South Australia. 'Perfection 12', as they are popularly known, is a group of very brave women who are bringing the biggest sexual harassment case in Australia before the Federal Court. They are 12 women of colour who are fighting for justice, respect and safety, not just for themselves but for every single woman working in the Perfection Fresh glasshouse at Two Wells, north of Adelaide. Perfection Fresh is one of the largest fruit and vegetable producers in Australia and supplies the major supermarket chains. These workers claim that sexual harassment has been widespread in their workplace. The details are truly shocking. These farm workers, all members of the United Workers Union, were employed by a labour hire company to perform contract work at the Two Wells glasshouse. They are suing Perfection Fresh for close to $4 million, but they say it is not about the money. They are fighting to win permanent change for themselves and for all of the women who work inside the glasshouse. Those who lack power in our workplaces deserve a better deal. They deserve to be safe at work. They need stable, ongoing employment, freedom from harassment, a say over their rosters and the right to join a union. The 'Perfection 12' have endured gross and degrading behaviour in the workplace, and Australia should not tolerate circumstances such as these for any workers, let alone our most vulnerable. Our food production should not be built on such exploitation. After decades of information and experience across this country about sexual harassment and about ways to prevent it, it is truly shocking that it still happens in this way on this scale. It must stop. Best wishes to everyone who is part of that struggle and to the 'Perfection 12'. Banking and Financial Services 49 13:36 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Like our medical industry, our financial industry has been captured by the big end of town. Over the last 30 years we have seen thousands of bank branches closed and insurance services withdrawn, making it harder and harder for small businesses and charities to operate. I've been contacted this week by a charity that has been offered a 4,000 per cent increase in their premium for public liability insurance. They've had to shop around. Luckily, they've found an insurance provider that has offered them a 300 per cent increase in their public liability insurance. A small-business man who works in a marina has had a $2,000 increase in his public liability insurance cost. We've got agricultural shows that are struggling to survive because they can't get public liability insurance. These costs, whether it's public insurance liability or housing insurance, need to be dealt with. The only solution—the only way forward—is to bring back a public bank and a government insurance office. The neoliberal privatisation of the early nineties has been a complete and utter disaster for financial services in this country. APRA, ASIC and the RBA aren't doing their job of making sure that financial service providers are even out there. Furthermore, we must make sure that the RBA isn't allowed to become completely independent of parliament; that is also a part of the problem. We've seen that recently: the Governor of the RBA, Michele Bullock, refused to hand over minutes between the RBA and the Bank for International Settlements. They have made a complete and utter disaster of the housing market in this country. Tasmania: Health Care 49 13:38 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I worked on the Albanese government's health legislation amendment to remove the requirement for a collaborative arrangement, a barrier that prevents nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives from prescribing Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines and providing services under Medicare. This amendment will open up more opportunities to deliver new and innovative ways to improve primary care across Tasmania, making a better healthcare system by improving access to care, particularly for those living in rural and regional areas. This will be a game changer for nurse practitioners and midwives, as they will now be able to work to their full scope of practice. This amendment supports innovative models of care involving nurse practitioners and multidisciplinary teams already underway in Tasmania, like the Cygnet Family Practice trial involving nurse practitioners Kerrie Duggan and Ali Spicer. It's working. It's benefiting Tasmanian health consumers, as they get the right care at the right time, some at home. It's spreading the workload by freeing up our doctors, ambulances, hospitals and emergency departments so they can take care of more serious health presentations. It's reducing costs and addressing the cost of living through free care. There are lots of examples, and I don't have time today to share all of those, but what these services now do is provide quality place based care in sustainable ways. Being able to prescribe medication means that their patients can get on the PBS, which they couldn't do before without a doctor's approval, and that they can get all of that important MBS subsidy when they do provide care to patients. This amendment will make way for trialling innovative models of care by unleashing our health workforce. I believe this is a game changer for Tasmania in rural and regional communities, where GPs are in short supply. After a decade of neglect, I commend the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, for her foresight and passion to expand our health workforce's capability to deliver better health for Australians now and into the future. Sport 49 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Australia is a sporting country. We are crazy about it. In fact, according to the ABS, 90 per cent of Australians have an interest in sport. Thirteen million adults and three million of our kids regularly compete on the sporting field. I, for one, loved sport as a kid. My mum and dad didn't have a lot of cash, so playing sport was an extra cost but one that they worked hard to cover. I am not sure if it was easier for parents to support kids in sport back then, but I do know that it's hard now. According to the Australian Sports Commission, Australian families spend at least $650 a year on kids' sports. Talking to the parents I know, I reckon that's lowballing the cost. If you're playing cricket or AFL in Tasmania, joining a club will set you back $200 per child per year. Then you have to buy the kit. Footy boots cost more than $100. The Tasmanian government will contribute $100 if you're a low-income family on benefits. So those low-income families have to find more than $500 a year on average. In the big cities, it's even worse. Parents are paying thousands of dollars for their kids to play sport. A friend of mine here in the ACT got the bill for their soccer-playing child the other day. It's $750 for their child to play in the community league—fewer than 20 games a year and just two training sessions a week for an 11-year-old. That is disgusting. We're in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and we're creating a system of haves and have-nots. Those that have can keep their kids fit and engaged in sports. They can give their kids access to the benefits of playing sport. Those who have not are left out. They can't play sport, because they can't afford it—$750 is an enormous amount that most families can't afford. A great number of Australians will end up being have-nots. What if one of those kids is the next Sam Kerr, Ricky Ponting or Jack Riewoldt? Will they slip through the cracks? I reckon they will. It's not right, and the state governments along with the feds need to do something about the cost of sport for our kids right now because it is so unfair that they're not on those sporting fields. Western Australia Government, Gun Control 50 13:42 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia The WA state government is not addressing the real issues affecting Western Australians. The Cook Labor government should be working on ensuring Western Australia is ready for AUKUS and preparing the defence resources we need to develop our nuclear submarine capability. They should be working on delivering their election commitment to the police force so they have the officers they need to manage rampant crime levels, especially after 1,000 officers have handed in their badges over the last two years. Yet the Cook government is putting all their energy into overhauling WA's firearm legislation and targeting the state's law-abiding firearm owners that use firearms for their sport and control of feral animals which heavily damage agriculture and the native ecosystem. WA is a vast state. If we were our own country, we would still be the 10th largest on landmass in the world, and already we have some of the strictest gun laws in any country. Don't get me wrong; it is imperative that we have effective firearm management measures in place. But we already have. So it begs the question: why is the state government making up issues? The Cook government is trying to distract from the real issues that the Cook Labor government are failing to fix. So far, this political exercise is costing WA taxpayers $64 million, and that's before they have implemented any of the reform processes, which will further cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, families in WA are struggling with the rising costs of living, the hospital system is struggling and power prices are rising. When will the Cook Labor government wake up and address the real issues for Western Australia? Parkinson's Disease 50 13:44 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Senator Askew and I are the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Parkinson's, and it is my great pleasure today to inform the Senate of some exciting developments with regard to Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's disease is a progressive nervous system disorder which over 150,000 Australians are currently living with. The symptoms can be treated with a combination of medicine, surgery and lifestyle changes, but there is no cure. Last month, a highly successful symposium on Parkinson's was hosted by the University of Tasmania, with more than 500 people attending either online or in person. I was greatly encouraged to hear from the guest speaker, Professor Glenda Halliday, about the current research efforts, particularly the high level of multidisciplinary collaboration taking place today, which is accelerating our understanding of Parkinson's disease. The University of Tasmania has also established the Tasmania Parkinson's Project, which aims to improve the lives of people with Parkinson's through research and education. Since the launch of the project, over 1,000 people have registered. This is a really great result, considering that the more people register for the project, the more they can do to improve care, research and education. Finally, next week a national summit on Parkinson's disease will be held here in Parliament House, and it will be my distinct honour to be addressing this summit as a co-chair of the friendship group. The summit will host the National Parkinson's Action Plan Taskforce, a new nationally coordinated body of researchers, clinicians and advocates. Initially the vision of my fellow Tasmanian—and Senator Askew's fellow Tasmanian as it turns out—Dr Harley Stanton, the group has rapidly grown from humble beginnings in 2021 to a unified and strong new voice for Parkinson's disease. The summit will be attended by the Governor-General, His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley AC, and opened by Professor Carolyn Sue AM, a leading Parkinson's researcher. Newroz, Bangladesh 51 13:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I'd like to wish everyone a peaceful and happy Newroz. Today we celebrate new light and spring with our Kurdish friends and family across Australia and the world. The Australian Democratic Kurdish Community Centre of New South Wales and the Sydney Kurdish Youth Association told me: Newroz is the beginning of new light and freedom for Kurds. The idea of Newroz is the fall of the evil leaders in the past and the unity of oppressed people coming together and defeating the evil and celebrating around the bonfire with music and food— and family. I cannot think of a more worthy celebration, and I look forward to the events held this weekend. Let 2024 be a year of peace and freedom for the Kurdish people across the world. Madam Acting Deputy President Walsh, 26 March marks the 53rd Independence Day of Bangladesh. It's now been over half a century since Bangladesh gained independence, and I look forward to celebrating with the community at the Bangladesh Community Council iftar next week in Sydney. Promoting multiculturalism, social cohesion and our common humanity is what moments like these are about, but at the same time we must acknowledge the challenges for human rights and democracy in Bangladesh. Just this week, Amnesty International and MSF were in this parliament, talking to politicians about one of the largest refugee camps in the world, Cox's Bazar. One million Rohingya have fled violence and persecution and sought safety in Bangladesh, and I think a lot of people here should reflect on this. Bangladesh has far fewer resources than Australia yet is supporting a far larger refugee community onshore. They need and deserve much more support from governments like Australia's to help ensure the human rights of Rohingya refugees are respected and safe refuge is granted. Science Meets Parliament 51 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory It was a huge privilege to take part in this year's Science Meets Parliament event, and I'd like to give a big thank you to the team at Science and Technology Australia for organising what I understand were meetings for some 250 delegates with 79 parliamentarians through the course of the week. The message coming out of it was pretty simple: Australia's scientists are among the world's best, and we need to value and respect their work. We need to use it to inform our decisions on evidence based policymaking. Part of valuing our scientists is funding their work. We need to see a serious investment from the government in research and development. The most recent SRI budget tables, published in April last year, indicate that the government will invest $12.1 billion in R&D in 2022-23. We will spend $11.1 billion subsidising fossil fuels. At just 0.49 per cent, we are at the lowest point for Australian government R&D expenditure as a percentage of R&D on record—since records began. The government has a commitment to get that up to three per cent. The question is: How? How are they going to do that? This morning I met with Professor Anya Reading, Australia's first female professor of geophysics, who now works on Antarctica. Her ask was both simple and symptomatic across the sector: 'Please fund us for more than just ad hoc expeditions. Fund us for an ongoing program of data collection. Give us certainty.' Data from Antarctica will be crucial to understanding the impact of potentially catastrophic events like melting Antarctic sea ice. The government needs to back up their promise with action come the federal budget in May. Tasmania: Sport 51 13:50 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It has been a big week in Tasmania on the issue of not just the state election but, indeed, sport in Tasmania. After many a decade and efforts by many—on all sides of the political spectrum, but most importantly people in the sporting community—we're well on the way to having our own AFL team. We had the launch of the Tasmanian Devils team with its own jersey and logo, and it was a wonderful time for Tasmanians to celebrate something we've wanted for so long. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to highlight that it has been quite a journey getting here. Many different views have been expressed on exactly what's been required to get here. All of that being said, though, we have the team and it's a wonderful thing. Moving on from what is a momentous occasion and a historical point in time for our state, I do want to talk about some other fantastic achievements from high-level Tasmanian sporting personalities and members of the sports community, and to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them. They include the Tasmania JackJumpers, our own NBL team, which is participating in the finals this week. Our Sheffield Shield cricket side is also participating in its national finals, along with the Tasmanian women's cricket team, which recently completed a spectacular three-peat of national one-day titles. There are many, many great individual Tasmanian sportsmen and sportswomen, and I won't be able to mention them all, but there's a few I would like to pay tribute to, including the amazing young cyclist Felicity Wilson-Haffenden, gymnast Tristan Styles and sailor Will Sargent, each of whom has won world titles in recent months. That's not to mention our multiple world- and Olympic-title-winning swimmer Ariarne Titmus, who, despite her recent time in hospital, continues to go from strength to strength. To all of those who have done so well on behalf of our state and our country, I say congratulations to you on behalf of all Tasmanian members of this place and the other place. Immigration 52 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This morning Senator Hanson debated her bill to call a plebiscite on immigration and the resulting housing crisis, which is a human catastrophe. The bill was opposed by the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the National Party, the Greens, the Jacqui Lambie Network and the teal Senator Pocock. One Nation and Senator Babet supported it. We're the only parties that think people should get a say in immigration. Everyone else clearly doesn't want to let the Australian people say, 'No.' They don't want to let the people say, 'We don't want more people coming here, driving up rents that we can't afford now,' 'No, we don't want to choose between paying groceries and paying the mortgage,' and, for an increasing number of Australians, 'No, we don't want to live in a tent.' Never has an issue so marked the distinction between the political class and the people they're supposed to represent. Every day our office gets many calls on this. I wonder what those who voted against One Nation's bill will say when these people call. Does your office lie and sympathise with them or do you tell them to just go and suffer in their jocks? That's how you voted. Do you visit the homeless in tent cities around Australia, as I've done, or do you drive past and look the other way? The hypocrisy on this issue is breathtaking. So many senators who've sat over there opposing this bill are on social media calling for reduced immigration. Those posts are lies that are designed to cover for parties who've been captured and joined an agenda destroying our way of life, removing access to affordable housing. According to Western Union research, 11 per cent of the income migrants earn in Australia is sent overseas to their families, never to return, reducing Australia's national wealth. Australia's in a per capita recession, and wealth outflow is part of that problem. Wealth outflow reduces local spending and investment. It doesn't create jobs—it costs jobs. If everyday Australians feel they're working harder and going backwards, it's because they are. Only a vote for One Nation will get Australians back into affordable housing. Motor Neurone Disease 52 13:54 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland A few years ago I lost my mum to motor neurone disease. It is a really insidious disease that affects your motor neurones that send signals to the rest of your body and, over a period of time, you lose the ability to walk, to speak and ultimately to breathe. Motor neurone disease is much more prevalent than people realise. Every day two people are diagnosed and every day two people die, and the time to death from diagnosis is roughly two to three years. Today the Prime Minister welcomed Warren 'Woz' Acott to parliament. He has been diagnosed with MND and he rode his lawnmower 800 kilometres from his home in Victoria to raise awareness of MND. One of the things that I've learned being a family member of someone with MND is that everyone in the MND community, including those people who are diagnosed, work really hard to educate the rest of the community and to fund raise to assist people who have it. If you are over 65 and you get MND, you do not have access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and, if you are diagnosed with MND, the likelihood that your care package will get approved before you die is very slim. My mother was certainly one of those who knew that she was going to need one but never got it. Kelly and Kylie have organised a walk to defeat MND on Saturday in Gladstone. It is the first one to be held in our community. They are raising money for MND Queensland, the only state based MND support organisation that does not get recurrent funding. I would like to commend them for organising the walk and I really look forward to joining them along with other members of the MND community to raise awareness and money. Remote Laundries 52 13:56 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Urgent action is needed to tackle Australia's biggest killer—heart disease. Cardiovascular disease is the underlying cause of one in four deaths in Australia and costs over $12.7 billion. The Heart Foundation has identified several initiatives to tackle this big killer of Australians, a disease that is largely preventable—that is, rheumatic heart disease. One initiative that has captured my heart is the Remote Laundries project. Australia has some of the highest rates of rheumatic heart disease globally, a disease that is substantially caused by disadvantage. Alarmingly, eight in 10 Aboriginal children in remote areas are afflicted with disease such as scabies by their first birthday. Without treatment, scabies can lead to severe health issues including kidney and heart disease and rheumatic heart disease. The cure is clean bedding, towels and clothes, which are taken for granted by most Australians but which are crucial to remaining healthy. However, access to washing machines and hot water in remote communities is harder than you would think. Remote community laundries fill this gap and have had enormous success including a 60 per cent reduction in scabies since the project began. I want to send a heartfelt thank you to Fred Scrubby from the Barunga laundry, Sam Autio from the Darwin laundry, Miriam Wurrawilya from the Angurugu laundry and Renelda Wurramara from the Milyakburra laundry and all the staff and volunteers who are helping clean up this disease one wash at a time. Workplace Relations: Mable 53 13:58 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The government passed laws last year that mean we can finally look under the hood of private employers to see their progress in closing the gender pay gap. In late February we saw the first-ever publication of data for nearly 5,000 companies, but some stood out more than others. I'm particularly concerned by the unregulated spread of gig work in the Australian disability support and aged care sectors. I wondered, as I read through the data, where would the care sector gig platform Mable be? Surely, with their profit-for-purpose values and their $100 million in foreign investment they would be doing okay. Given the feminised aged-care and disability sectors that Mable have spread into, their business model of contracting workers can lead to the exploitation of women. But clearly women in the head office fared no better. Mable's medium total remuneration gender pay gap is a whopping 23 per cent, higher than the national figure and far higher than the category of social assistance services, which stands at 5.7 per cent. There is more than just a gender pay gap at Mable; there is an integrity gap. The inquiry into the closing loopholes bill heard from a registered support worker who has been on the platform since 2017. She said that Mable is taking advantage of the caring and compassionate nature of workers. I call on Mable to join with other platforms to support Labor's gig reforms and give the workers— The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for two-minute statements has expired. We will move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE International Relations: Australia and the United States of America 53 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Do you agree with the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell, that the United States is not Australia's most trusted ally? If not, will you call on Senator Farrell to withdraw his controversial remark? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I welcome the question from the Acting Leader of the Opposition. I would note that it demonstrates, yet again, why those opposite are not fit for government. They are not interested in the major geostrategic challenges of the day, they're not interested in the cost of living— Senator Cash I0M It was your minister who made the comment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you've asked your question. Senator WONG 00AOU and they want to continue to focus on an issue which Senator Farrell has responded to. I think we all know that the Kiwis are family. We all know that. Everyone also knows that the United States is our closest ally and our principal strategic partner— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU and that generally, under both parties of government, there has been bipartisan support for the ANZUS alliance, the US alliance— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Farrell I0N I raise a point of order, President. I can't hear the minister's response. The PRESIDENT 112096 I have been calling the chamber to order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKenzie! Please continue, Senator Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I have been in this portfolio and in the shadow trade portfolio previously, and I have seen, on both sides of politics, bipartisan support for the US alliance and a contribution from both sides of politics to ensuring that it continues to be deep and strong and modern, and that Australians continue to gain the benefit of that relationship with our principal strategic partner. But, on a range of fronts this week, what we have seen is the opposition seeking to play partisan politics with the US alliance, which I think demonstrates, yet again, that under the wrecking ball that is Mr Dutton they are prepared recklessly to politicise anything, recklessly to fight about anything, regardless of whether or not it's good for the country. They're not fit for government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia How do Senator Farrell's remarks help to secure the transfer of knowledge and technology from the United States that the AUKUS partnership depends upon? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, what I would say to Senator Cash is that maybe she should be winding back some of the people on her side who are trying to undermine our engagement with the United States, including ensuring that the congress passes legislation to give effect to AUKUS. There are some things that should be above politics. Senator Cash I0M I raise a point of order in relation to relevance. The question goes to Senator Farrell's remarks as a government minister—not anybody in the opposition. You are in government. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Cash, you also went to the AUKUS arrangements, which Senator Wong was speaking about, so I believe she is being relevant to the question. Senator WONG 00AOU You talk about AUKUS, you put AUKUS on the table, and then you get annoyed when I defend it. It's extraordinary. We are doing the work on this side of the chamber and in Washington and in the United Kingdom in order to ensure that we assure a capability and a relationship, in the context of a relationship which is so important for Australia's security. And what we have across the chamber is a party led by a wrecking ball—I'm speaking of Mr Dutton; not you, Senator Cash—who's prepared to politicise anything. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, you've often said, 'In diplomacy, words matter.' Do you still believe that, in diplomacy, words such as the ones that Senator Farrell used on Monday and has refused to withdraw matter? If you do, then why won't you act? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The shadow minister might want to recall those famous words, 'I don't think; I know,' when she reminds us about diplomacy. What I would say to the senator is that we know you are confecting an argument where there is none. We know that for the third day now you are confecting an argument. You know that the Kiwis are our family, and you know that the commitment to the US alliance is unshakable—unshakable on this side. But you are deliberately seeking to confect outrage at a time when we are hosting the UK foreign secretary and defence secretary, because we are serious about making sure that we deliver AUKUS, deliver the technology transfer and deliver a sovereign capability, and we will do all we can to ensure Australia's security in these times. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I'm going to ask you to withdraw those comments. Senator Hughes 273828 I withdraw. Economy 54 14:06 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. Cost-of-living relief has been the Albanese Labor government's No. 1 policy focus since coming to office because Australians are doing it tough. Today, the latest labour force figures were released, and they show that the number of Australian jobs increased in February. Can the minister please update the Senate on these figures and what they tell us about the current state of our economy? 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for her question and for focusing on the cost of living and on jobs for the Australian people. I do note the fact that we're not getting any questions on either of those subjects from those opposite. Today's remarkable jobs figures—the labour force figures that were released today—really are extraordinary. They show that the unemployment rate has been revised down to 3.7 per cent, substantially down on last month's figures and, again, showing the record level of job numbers—790,000 jobs that have been created under this Labor government. So, when we talk cost of living, getting wages moving and getting people into jobs so they can work more and earn more has been a key focus of our economic plan. Today's new job figures show that 116,500 new jobs were created in February. What we're also seeing is inflation moderate and our employment rate remaining incredibly resilient. We've had a welcome pause on interest rates. We're seeing wages growth for the first time in a decade. These are all really important measures to make sure that, along with our other policies on cost of living, people are earning more and working more and that, under our tax cuts, they will keep more of what they earn. We know those opposite hate it. They hate the fact that there have been 790,000 jobs created under this Labor government's economic plan and that, in addition to that, our cost-of-living measures combined with these incredible results mean we are doing what we can to support people through this time. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia South Australians have told me the Albanese Labor government's support for cost-of-living pressures that they have been facing has been some welcome relief and, in particular, they've been supportive of Labor's tax cuts for all taxpayers. Can the minister please outline the impact of the labour market results for my home state of South Australia? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for that question and, again, for her focus on making a difference to her community. A hundred per cent of taxpayers in South Australia will get a tax cut on 1 July and, when you look at the labour market figures, there are absolutely incredible results in your home state, Senator Smith. In fact, the figures show that South Australia's unemployment rate has fallen to 3.2 per cent. This is the lowest unemployment rate in South Australia since 1978. It's an incredible result. Since 1978, South Australians haven't seen an unemployment rate that low. When we came to government, the South Australian unemployment rate was 4.7 per cent. Since we came to government, the average unemployment rate under the Labor government is 3.7 per cent. It was 5.6 per cent under the coalition government. We are better on wages, we are better on jobs and we are better on cost-of-living relief. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia The policies you have outlined demonstrate the significant work on cost of living that the government has been undertaking since the election. We know the next federal budget is in May. How will the government continue to provide cost-of-living relief in this budget? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for that question. As I said in my previous answer, the centrepiece of our cost-of-living relief and assistance in the budget will be the tax cuts; 100 per cent of Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut from 1 July, and the overwhelming number of them will get a bigger tax cut than they would have gotten under the former plan. But we know there is more work to do. We know people are still feeling the pressure of the high rates of inflation; which is moderating, and that is welcome. Our strategy will continue to focus on that: providing relief where we can, where it is affordable and won't add to inflation; repairing the budget; and, of course, making investments where we can in the future economic growth of this country. We know that, under the opposition—who have nothing but negativity—inflation would have stayed higher, wages would have stayed lower and there would be more debt that the Australian government would be managing. Our economic plan is working, New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 55 14:11 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to Senator Wong, the minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Overnight, the Biden administration in the US has significantly watered down their fuel efficiency standards and backed away from aggressive EV targets. Instead of requiring two-thirds of car sales to be electric by 2030, the new rules reportedly set the target as low as 35 per cent EV sales by 2032. Labor's proposed family car tax has set a much more aggressive rate of emissions reduction than the American scheme. Will the government admit it has got its proposal wrong and commit to changes that will not increase the cost of buying cars for Australians? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for her question. I take the opportunity to point out—because I understand this has been the subject of some questioning while I have not been able to be here—that, obviously, Australia lags behind the US and most other developed countries when it comes to vehicle emissions standards. I am sure that the senator would be aware that it is important for us to join the rest of the world and comparable economies in terms of the vehicle efficiency standards. I note that we have had a consultation process. I understand that the ministers are working closely with industry to integrate sensible suggestions into the legislation. We have obviously taken note of changes made to the US standards which were announced this week. These are one of the matters that the government will be considering as we finalise the policy. I am sure that the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy will be happy to consider sensible suggestions to ensure the policy does what it is intended to do—that is, to give Australians more choice of vehicles that cost less to drive and cost less to charge. Senator McKenzie 207825 That they can't afford. Senator WONG 00AOU The interjection from Senator McKenzie is interesting, because it suggests that putting in place something similar to what other developed countries have will somehow cause the sky to fall in. I am reminded of the long history of hyperbole on that side when it comes to climate policy. We remember, don't we, the 'Whyalla wipeout' and the $100 roasts? Barnaby Joyce has certainly ensured that members of the National Party and parts of the Liberal Party certainly exaggerate, but we will continue to be sensible. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Labor's proposed family car tax is more punitive than the United States', as it will apply to a larger range of utes and commercial vehicles, it will force an annual emissions reduction rate nearly eight times higher than has been the case in the United States and it will give Australian consumers and auto dealers less time to adapt. Today the US has backed down from its scheme. Why is the government punishing Australians for their car choices in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It's interesting that the only reference to the cost of living is a political flourish at the end of a question about something else. We've had so few cost-of-living questions from those on the other side. They're much more interested in having a whole range of abstract or confected political arguments than actually talking about the cost of living. I again would say to the senator that we have had a consultation process. Our goal remains to provide a choice of cleaner, cheaper-to-run cars for all Australians who want them. We want Australians to have more choice in new cars, not less choice, and to pay less for fuel. There's a lot of misinformation that has been perpetuated by those opposite, which is unsurprising because what we know is that even those on that side who, over the years, have taken a more sensible position on this issue—and I'm happy to come back and quote some of those on the opposition benches who've had a more sensible position—have been shouted down by Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria According to reports, the Biden administration has changed its tune and is now embracing hybrids to help reduce vehicle carbon emissions. Under Labor's proposed family car tax, poplar hybrids like the Toyota RAV4 would be punished with penalties of up to $4,800 and, for the hybrid Corolla, of over $5,000. Why won't the government recognise the role that hybrids play in reducing emissions here in Australia rather than increasing their cost under the proposed emissions standard? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I know that Senator McKenzie really can't wait. She hasn't waited for the government to actually make a final decision on this before running a fear campaign, a scare campaign, about particular cars. I again remind her that she's asking questions about reports of US action in an economy that has had these sorts of standards for how many decades? I can't recall. It's been decades. So the scare campaign, I think, falls a little short when we're reminded that, in fact, the United States, which she's asking about, has had these standards in place for many years. The government will take an appropriate approach— Senator McKenzie 207825 On a point of order, President, on relevance: the question was about the role that hybrids play in a low-emissions transport sector going forward whilst being absolutely ruled out. It's not me. It's not the US. It's actually economic modelling that says it's the case. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. It also went to the Biden administration, so the minister is being directly relevant to your question. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU If I may quote Mr Fletcher: So when fuel efficiency standards were introduced in the US, the most popular models before introduction stayed the most popular models after introduction. Also from Paul Fletcher: There wasn't a material change in price and we don't expect that there would be a material change in price here. These are your own colleagues. (Time expired) International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 57 14:18 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Racism systematically disadvantages and immensely harms people of colour. The dispossession of and violence against First Nations that started with invasion continues to this day. The 21st of March is marked the world over as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, IDERD, which the Howard government replaced with Harmony Day to erase historic and ongoing racism in Australia. Then the Morrison government concocted Harmony Week, an entire week to whitewash the reality of racism. Not actively tackling racism at this time while hiding behind a mask of harmony is hollow and harmful, and it doesn't make us feel good. Minister, will the Albanese government replace the superficial Harmony Week with a meaningful week of antiracism? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order! Senator Faruqi and her party have listened in silence to questions asked by the opposition. Senator McKenzie in particular, you need to listen in silence. Minister Wong. 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I had the opportunity today to go down to my department to speak about the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and to launch a report that I'm very proud of, which is about trying to ensure that within the foreign service we not only ensure that everybody can be the best they can be and are not held back but, more importantly, celebrate and make front and centre one of our great strengths as a nation, which is our diversity; that we bring the experience of First Nations people and that proud heritage to our foreign policy and to our diplomacy; and that we leverage and utilise all of the talents of the diverse cohort which makes up the people who work for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I also say to you that it's what we all do to eliminate racism. It's what we do in our lives, it's what we do in this chamber, it's what we do in our workplaces, it's what we do on public transport and it's how we speak. One of the things I would really encourage in this place is for us to try to speak as a collective, because I would hope that, on this issue, we actually share values. My view on what things are called is that I personally don't have an issue with the word 'harmony', but I'm also happy to talk about the elimination of racial discrimination and my own personal experience of racism, to try to empower those who still experience racism too often and so often and to do all we can to ensure we live in a society and a world and operate in this chamber in a way that is respectful and inclusive. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 14:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, today is Closing the Gap Day, and we are nowhere near closing the gap. Last week marked five years since the Christchurch mosque massacre by an Australian white supremacist, yet we don't even have a national antiracism strategy yet. Minister, will the government follow the Greens in establishing a standalone antiracism portfolio in cabinet to reckon with the seriousness of racism in this country? 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can I just go to the last point? I think it's all of our jobs. I do. I think racism is still pervasive. We know what it means. It derives from seeing another person as other and diminishing them— Senator Faruqi 250362 It happens every day, Minister. Senator WONG 00AOU I really find it distressing that you are going to interrupt when I am talking about this. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, I ask you to direct your answers to the chair. Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM That was going to be my point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Have you finished your answer, Senator Wong? Senator Faruqi, second supplementary? 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, IDERC marks the day police massacred 69 peaceful protesters demonstrating against apartheid in South Africa. Australian governments were shameful supporters of white apartheid South Africa until Labor Prime Minister Whitlam took action. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi. Senator FARUQI 250362 Minister, we are now witnessing an apartheid against Palestinians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, please— Senator FARUQI 250362 What will it take— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi! Order across the chamber! Senator Faruqi, I should not have had to ask you three times to resume your seat, but the interjections, particularly from my left side, were disgraceful. The senator has the right to ask her question in silence. Senator Faruqi, please continue. Senator FARUQI 250362 Minister, what will it take for the Labor government to withdraw its support for the apartheid and genocidal state of Israel? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, as I'm sure you're aware, that is a long bow to draw. It's really up to the minister whether she answers that second supplementary or not, but I'm going to invite her to respond. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 There will be silence in this chamber. 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, the senator would know we have been very clear about our call for a humanitarian ceasefire and of the importance of international humanitarian law. Senator, I am also disappointed that, if the question begins with a discussion of racial discrimination, you would go to as political an issue as that, but that's your choice. The third thing I would say— Senator Faruqi 250362 The issue is about racism. Senator Hughes 273828 Release the hostages! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong, please resume your seat. I have asked for respectful silence. That is what I expect. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU My third point is this: we have a responsibility in this chamber to model how our democracy should operate, including where we hold very deeply felt different views, because what brings us together as Australians matters more than that difference. I want to place on record my disappointment at the way in which some of the frankly abusive and extreme things we have seen are being condoned by some in this chamber. (Time expired.) International Relations 58 14:26 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Over the last month we've had a number of visits from foreign ministers and world leaders, particularly from China, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and South East Asian nations. Minister, how do each of these incoming visits benefit Australia? In particular, how will the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit in Melbourne earlier this month help boost economic opportunities for Australians and build peace and prosperity in our region? 14:27 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for his question and say that Australians expect and deserve a government that advances the nation's interests in a mature and serious way, and we've been very pleased to welcome a great number of high-level international visitors here this year, including the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea and the foreign minister of Papua New Guinea, New Zealand's newly appointed foreign and defence ministers, 17 international ministers and a head of state at the Indian Ocean Conference in Perth, China's foreign minister yesterday, and today and tomorrow the British foreign and defence secretaries. And, of course, earlier this month Australia hosted a dozen world leaders from ASEAN and Timor-Leste at the special summit in Melbourne. Each visit is an opportunity to advance a more peaceful, stable and prosperous world, one in which we operate by rules, standards and norms, where each country's sovereignty is respected and where each country can pursue its own aspirations. The ASEAN special summit commemorated 50 years since Australia became ASEAN's first dialogue partner, another prescient decision by Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. We agreed with ASEAN leaders a vision statement and a Melbourne declaration setting out practical cooperation and shared aspirations for the future, and there was a lot of discussion about how we boost economic engagement, accelerate the clean energy transition and increase maritime cooperation. South East Asia will be the world's fourth-largest market after the United States, China and India by 2040. After the neglect of the previous government, the Albanese government is re-engaging with South East Asia. We've launched Invested: Australia's Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040. I thank Nicholas Moore for his work. We are creating opportunities for Australian businesses and jobs to grow. We've announced a $2 billion investment financing facility to boost investment in South East Asia—more trade, more jobs, more business for Australians and a stronger region. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a first supplementary? 14:29 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Minister, yesterday you met with China's foreign minister for the seventh Australia-China Foreign and Strategic Dialogue. Could you please inform the Senate why dialogue and engagement are at the heart of the growing relationship between Australia and the People's Republic of China? 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Our relationship with China is important, and it is consequential. A stable relationship between us doesn't just happen; it needs ongoing work to advance our interests and to manage our differences. I was pleased to welcome foreign minister Wang Yi to Australia, the most senior visitor from China since 2017. We agreed to continue our constructive engagements on a range of issues, including education, defence and trade, and to expand climate and energy cooperation. I welcomed the progress of the removal of trade impediments and reiterated our desire for the removal of remaining impediments. I reiterated Australia's shock at the sentencing of Dr Yang Jun and a range of other concerns, including the human rights of Uighurs, Tibetans and other minorities across China. I also expressed our deep concerns that Hong Kong's new legislation will further erode rights and freedoms, with potential impacts on individuals in Australia. Australians expect their government to pursue a mature and productive relationship in both countries' interests, and the Prime Minister looks forward to welcoming— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary? 14:30 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria With the UK's foreign secretary, Lord Cameron, and Defence Secretary Shapps in Parliament House today—I understand they will then be travelling to Adelaide tomorrow—what does the minister hope to discuss with her UK counterpart during this visit? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm very much looking forward to welcoming Secretaries Cameron and Shapps to my home town of Adelaide. Adelaide will play a key role in building the AUKUS fleet. It's set to create more than 8,000 jobs, and the Deputy Prime Minister and I will be showing them what South Australian shipbuilders can do. I'll be meeting with Foreign Secretary Cameron shortly and we will sign two memorandums of understanding. One MOU will see Australia and the United Kingdom cooperate more closely when we respond to crises and major incidents. Recently, in Ukraine, Sudan and the Middle East, Australia and the United Kingdom have worked together on the ground, and we want to build on this great work. The second MOU will focus on how we can work together to strengthen our shared efforts to help end gender based violence, including in South-East Asia and the Pacific. In our region and beyond, with traditional partners and new partners, the Albanese government is advancing Australia's interests. Nuclear Waste Management: Submarines 59 14:31 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question for the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Minister Wong. The naval nuclear safety bill currently before the Senate allows Australia to take on radioactive waste from the US and the UK through the AUKUS deal, including high-level and military-grade radioactive waste. After many decades of nuclear submarines, the US and UK still have no solution to their nuclear waste. Is it the government's intention to use this power under the bill to take on foreign nuclear waste? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Thorpe for her question. I'm sure, in the context of the committee debate, there can be perhaps a more detailed answer. But what I would say is this: in our commitment to AUKUS there was no deviation whatsoever from Australia's position—and, in particular, the position that the Albanese government has articulated, which is I think the same position from those opposite when they were in government—around our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. We made very clear that how we would handle the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines would be to work very closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure we remained compliant with our obligations as a non-nuclear party under the NPT. So what I would say to you is: we intend to apply the strictest standards. We are working very closely with Director General Grossi of the IAEA to ensure that is the case. We have no intention of establishing a domestic nuclear industry in Australia. What we do intend to do is to acquire a nuclear powered submarine capability. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, a first supplementary? 14:34 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria A Defence spokesperson told a Senate inquiry last week that it is not the government's intention to take on foreign nuclear waste. If that is the case, will your government commit to amending the bill to remove any possibility of future governments hosting foreign nuclear waste in Australia? 14:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you for placing that on the record. I wasn't aware of the Defence official's comments, and I'm grateful they are consistent with what I have said. In relation to your proposition, I will take on board your proposal and refer it to the Minister for Defence. I would also say to you, if that is a commitment that is being sought, there are obviously other ways in which that commitment can be given in the chamber, but that's a matter that would need to be negotiated with the Minister for Defence. I'll undertake to ensure that he is aware of your interest in this matter. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Does your $368 billion for AUKUS include the long-term costs of managing and disposing of nuclear waste? 14:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The figure that you have outlined, which did form part of the announcement, is a figure associated with the acquisition and sustainment of the capability—that is, the submarine capital. Health Care 60 14:35 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. I refer the minister to a statement made by the Tasmanian Labor leader, Rebecca White. It says: We will make redevelopments at our major hospitals our highest priority for Federal Government funding in our first term, working with them to deliver these projects … Funding for these health infrastructure promises would likely run into the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. Have any requests been received for these announcements? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Askew for the question on the important issue of health. It's nice to get a question on such a significant matter. In relation to announcements made by the Labor opposition in Tasmania, I'm not specifically aware of the announcement you mentioned, but we've made no secret of wanting to work with state and territory governments on delivery of hospital services improvements, and obviously there are discussions all the time with states and territories about hospital infrastructure. It was a key decision point and discussion point at National Cabinet late last year about the hospital reform agreement that's up for negotiation and the pressure that's on state and territory governments around that, so I don't think it's any secret that health systems around the country are under pressure. State and territory governments are finding it difficult to manage some of those pressures and are wanting assistance from the Commonwealth, which we're happy to engage in with the national health— Senator Duniam 263418 A point of order on direct relevance: the minister was asked about whether a request was received. We've talked generally about health, but I haven't heard her say yet whether a request has been received from the Labor leader or not. The PRESIDENT 112096 She did answer that specific point in the first sentence. She is being relevant. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The Albanese government looks forward to working with the government of Tasmania, pending the outcome of the election that's underway, when that occurs. We will work together on health. We will work together on health infrastructure. We will work together on Medicare urgent care clinics. We will work together on workforce, which has been an issue in Tasmania—access to specialists, particularly access to primary care, to GPs, to new models of care. These are all things that the minister for health will work on with whoever is the health minister. If there are particular policies that have been made by either side through the election campaign, the Commonwealth remains open and prepared to engage on all of those matters should they improve health service delivery in Tasmania. The PRESIDENT 112096 First supplementary, Senator Askew? 14:39 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania That sounds like a no. Given that you have not specified a date on which any such request has been received, is it the case that no request has been made? 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We have discussions, as I said, with the opposition and government of Tasmania about pressing priorities. I have had discussions with Ms White, I have certainly had them around health, when I have had the opportunity to meet with her. I know the health minister works across the parliament in Tasmania on that, and I would think it's highly unusual that a Labor leader in any state or territory or in the federal jurisdiction would not go to the people of their state with a comprehensive policy around health, hospital infrastructure and improving services. We know they've been under pressure in Tasmania and, from what I've seen of the campaign, health is a critical issue, so I don't think it's any surprise that commitments are being made about that. The Commonwealth remains open and prepared to engage, once the people of Tasmania have had their say. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Askew, second supplementary? 14:40 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Can you detail any aspect of Tasmanian Labor's health promises that the Albanese Labor government has agreed to fund? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As I said in my previous answers, we will work with the government of the day in Tasmania to continue to improve access to health services for the people of Tasmania. It is not unusual that parties go through election campaigns and make commitments and, when those commitments are endorsed and governments are elected, the Commonwealth will work with them. It is of course in stark contrast to what happened when the coalition was in power, when it went around cutting the hospital agreements—when they cut $50 billion under Peter Dutton's leadership. They cut money out. I was a territory leader then, and I remember what happened. We are prepared to invest. We are prepared to work with the Labor Party if they win government in Tasmania, just as we will if the current government remains in place. Health services are an important issue for any election campaign, and we look forward to working with either party, pending the outcome. Immigration 61 14:41 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. Australia is experiencing the largest immigration intake on record. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that 518,000 net overseas migrants arrived last year and 55,375 migrants arrived in January this year alone—55,375 migrants in one month. That's 40 per cent higher than the previous January record way back in 2009. Minister, how many migrants is this government going to let in this year? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Roberts. The first thing I'd like to say is that the Albanese government is very proud of the multicultural nature of the Australian population. I heard you earlier today in another debate, Senator Roberts, acknowledge that your own family has a fairly recent history of migration, and I think we should all recognise the very valuable contribution that migrants have played, and continue to play, in Australia. Having said that, we do acknowledge that there has been an increase in migration to Australia, particularly as a result of the pause to migration that occurred through the pandemic. The figures that have come out today are entirely expected and are consistent with the forecasts for net overseas migration that we set out in the mid-year budget review at the end of last year. Migration levels are expected to have peaked in 2022-23 and are forecast to drop in half by next year. Our government is doing the hard work not done under the former government to bring migration back to sustainable levels—after all, comparable countries also experienced a surge post the pandemic. The changes that we made late last year are having a significant and immediate impact. For example, student visa grants are down more than 35 per cent on last year's level, and I know for a fact that Minister O'Neil, Minister Clare and Minister O'Connor have been working very hard on trying to tackle some of the rorts that were left behind in the international student visa system. That is having results in terms of bringing those student visa grants down by more than 35 per cent on last year's level. The data that has been released today doesn't take into account the very substantial actions that our government has taken to bring down net overseas migration, and that's because most of those actions were implemented mid to late last year. But we recognise that this as an issue for Australians, and we're taking action to deal with it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:44 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland With people in Queensland, including working families with real jobs, now living in tents, in caravans, in parks, in cars and under bridges, there is a human catastrophe unfolding in this country, in our state. Will you suspend further immigration until everyone who is here now has a bed to sleep in with a roof over their head? 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Roberts. I absolutely acknowledge that our country has a housing shortage. We have acknowledged that since the day that we were elected and had to deal with the massive housing shortage and housing affordability crisis that was left behind by the former government. That is exactly why we have been presenting a range of options to this parliament to deal with housing shortages, including the creation of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Senator Roberts, for someone who says that we should have more housing to deal with this, I'm surprised that you and Senator Hanson voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. In fact, I was reminded that Senator Hanson, in the last 24 hours or so, has described the Housing Australia Future Fund as 'useless'. You continue to argue that we need more housing, just as the coalition argues for more housing, but when you have an opportunity to do something about it, what do you do? You vote no. We know that you're intending to vote no to the help to buy legislation as well, so be consistent. If you want more housing, vote for it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 14:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, is immigration too high? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Roberts. The government is already taking action to try to deal with the increase in migration that we experienced after the pandemic and just as all other comparable nations experienced after the pandemic. That's why we've made changes to student visa grants. They are down by more than 35 per cent on last year's level—the settings that were left behind by the former government. That's why we've taken a range of other actions to fix the utterly broken migration system that was left behind by Mr Dutton, the former home affairs minister. Yet again we're fixing up the former government's mess while at the same time we're trying to build homes, even though we are obstructed every step of the way by the coalition, One Nation and, all too often, the Greens party. Senator Rennick 283596 They want home ownership. Senator WATT 245759 I heard an interjection that people don't want public housing, they want homeownership. Firstly, they do want public housing; and, secondly, homeownership is exactly what we're trying to do through our Help to Buy scheme. It's in the name—'help to buy'. Insurance Industry 62 14:47 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Minister Watt. Given our country is facing more frequent and intense natural disasters, and given, as a result, more Australians are now living in areas at high risk of floods, bushfires and cyclones, this increased risk has made insuring homes more expensive for many Australians. Minister, what is the Albanese Labor government doing to deliver tangible national action to reduce climate and disaster risks and put downward pressure on the cost of living? Senator Davey 281697 That's a good question. 14:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It is a good question, Senator Davey, and I've got a very good answer as well. I thank Senator Sheldon for his ongoing work as the Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery. I know that only recently he was in Far North Queensland, where both he and Senator Green have been doing terrific work to assist Far North Queenslanders recovering from the cyclones and floods that we've seen in the last couple of months. Since our election in 2022, the Albanese government has worked hard to ensure that Australia is much better prepared for natural disasters. Increased disaster risk is the single biggest contributor to the higher insurance costs that many households are experiencing. Rising insurance premiums, which the former government allowed to spiral out of control, are another cost-of-living pressure on Australians. Without insurance, people face longer recovery times and need to rely on their own savings or funding from governments or charities to support recovery. Today, I was proud to announce that, in a world first, two of Australia biggest insurers are now providing discounts to customers who complete a bushfire resilience self-assessment through the government funded, free Bushfire Resilience Rating app. Thanks to a $3 million investment from the Albanese government, Australians living in bushfire-prone areas have the science and power in their hands to improve their home's resilience. The discounts announced today by Suncorp and NRMA for high resilience ratings can be up to $500 off your premium for people living in the highest risk areas. This is real cost-of-living relief for Australians doing it tough. The higher the bushfire risks at a location, the higher the discount provided to customers who improve their home's resilience. To date, 19,000 households have accessed the app since it was launched in October last year. Many of the recommended actions through the app cost very little or nothing at all. So this is a practical step with an investment by the Albanese government that is helping take some of the pressure off Australians with their insurance premiums. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 14:49 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Noting the Albanese government's investments are making Australia safer and more resilient to the impacts of natural disasters, what other measures have been implemented in the resilience space, and how are these investments helping with the cost of living? 14:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Sheldon. We know that investment in resilience and mitigation not only makes Australians safer when disaster strike; it also reduces the cost of recovery for governments and households. With a massive $1 billion pipeline of resilience and mitigation investment over the next five years through the Albanese government's flagship, Disaster Ready Fund, we expect to see these benefits continue to flow through to Australians in the coming years. On the other hand, the former government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even acknowledge climate change—and we know there are a few of them who still aren't quite there yet. Maybe by 2050 they will acknowledge climate change is happening, or even invest in disaster risk reduction. They failed to act as natural hazards grew more frequent and intense, and their $4 billion Emergency Response Fund didn't spend a single dollar on disaster mitigation. Their inaction is what has created the environment for rising risk in insurance premiums. The Albanese government takes these issues seriously. We're making Australia better prepared. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 14:51 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Right now communities in the Northern Territory are experiencing severe weather, following Tropical Cyclone Megan. Minister, can you provide an update on the current severe weather situation across Australia? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We do continue to see severe weather occur in many parts of Australia with the high-risk weather season not yet over. Even today, we see bushfires in some parts of Western Australia and floods in some parts of Queensland. But, of course, most focus is on the situation in the Northern Territory. In Borroloola, the McArthur River, already at the record-breaking height of 17.6 metres, is likely to peak between 3 pm and 6 pm today. In response to requests from the Northern Territory government, the Commonwealth has worked quickly to activate the ADF, and we have now improved a number of requests for additional assistance over the past four days. Around 200 vulnerable community members have been evacuated from Borroloola to Darwin in the past 24 hours, with planning underway for possible evacuations at Timber Creek, Lajamanu, Kalkaringi and Pigeon Hole. The level of flooding in Borroloola and across the Northern Territory is extremely concerning. I encourage all community members to heed the advice of officials and take decisive action early. We will continue to work with the Northern Territory government to keep people safe. (Time expired) National Security 63 14:52 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to Senator Wong, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Minister, can you confirm reports that the government has removed the directors-general of ASIO and ASIS as regular attendees at the National Security Committee of Cabinet and that they are now only invited on a case-by-case basis. 14:52 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Paterson for his question. Senator Paterson would know—and I'm sure he knew this when he stood to ask the question—that we do not disclose the workings of the National Security Committee of Cabinet. What I would say to him is that directors-general of both of those organisations are fine officers and their advice is sought and considered very carefully by government, including by me. I'm aware that there have been some, outside of this place, who have chosen to be critical of some members of our intelligence community. As a minister who has the opportunity to engage with, rely on and consider their advice, I would say that they are highly professional, excellent officers and we are very pleased that they work with us as well as they do. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:54 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I welcome the minister's defence of our professional public servants and the intelligence community. Can you confirm reports that the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is now a regular attendee of the National Security Committee? Why does the government think that this person has superior insights on national security to the directors-general of ASIO and ASIS? 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I'm in a somewhat difficult position because we don't comment on the workings of those committees. But I would say to you I had never heard that before until you raised it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:54 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria There are media monitoring services available for such things, Minister. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator PATERSON 144138 Thank you; it wasn't mine. Did the Prime Minister remove the heads of our intelligence agencies from NSC because they were telling him things he didn't want to hear? Senator PATERSON 144138 Will the Prime Minister commit to reinstating the heads of our intelligence agencies as regular attendees of NSC so they can provide the candid and considered national security advice that this government so desperately needs to hear? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, Senator Watt, I'm going to ask you to withdraw those comments. Senator Watt 245759 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Minister Wong. 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Paterson is generally one of the more sensible members of the— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Would you like me to say something else? I can arrange that for your preselection, mate, if you really need me to at some point! He is generally one of the more sensible members of the opposition and somebody who understands the importance of working together on national security. Frankly, that question is beneath him. Trade 64 14:56 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Over the two years since the Albanese Labor government was elected, great strides have been made in improving the access into overseas markets for Australian exporters and products and lowering costs for Australian consumers on imported goods. Could the minister please provide an update on how this progress has come about through a sensible approach to trade agreements and stabilising relations? 14:56 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sterle for his question. I know he understands just how important trade and tourism are to the Western Australian economy, as I imagine you do too, Madam President. The Australian economic prosperity is directly linked to open and stable international markets. One in four Australian jobs is related to trade. Jobs in export industries pay five per cent more on average, and 27 per cent of Australia's economic output is supported by trade. Under the Albanese Labor government, Australia has been recording remarkable trade surpluses, which means exports are rising faster than imports. For example, in January 2024, the trade surplus on goods was $11 billion. Government senators: How much? Senator FARRELL I0N It was $11 billion! Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator FARRELL I0N In particular, exports from Senator Sterle's great state of Western Australia have benefited significantly from this government's steady hand on the trade tiller. The government is actively progressing a forward-leaning trade agenda by bringing priority agreements into force— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Seriously, Senator McKenzie. This is the chamber; we're not at a football match. Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you for that protection, President. The government is actively progressing a forward-leaning trade agenda by bringing priority agreements into force and progressing ongoing negotiations. The government is working hard to stabilise our trade relationship with China. Trade diversification is a central plank of the government's trade policy strategy. We need to deepen and diversify our trading relationship, particularly in our own region. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister hosted a special summit to celebrate 50 years of partnership with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It's an important event which enabled discussions on ways of deepening engagement in the region— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, first supplementary? 14:59 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I thank the minister for his answer. I refer the minister to the recent reporting about an interim determination of China's review into tariffs on Australian wine exports that the tariffs are no longer necessary. Could the minister please outline to the Senate the work taken towards stabilising Australia's trading relationship with China? 14:59 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia (—) (): I thank Senator Sterle for his supplementary question. I know there will be many people, particularly in Margaret River and Swan Valley—another beautiful wine area—in Western Australia who will know that the Albanese Labor government is working hard to stabilise our relationship with China without compromising our principles. Sustained engagement and advocacy have led to positive developments in the trade relationship—just ask Australian exporters in coal, cotton, copper ore, concentrates, timber logs, oats and hay and barley. We welcome China's interim decision of 12 March that the duties on wine are no longer necessary. We expect China will complete its review and remove duties by the end of this month, allowing Australia's quality wine, including those from the Margaret River and the Swan Valley to return to the Chinese market. This has been a remarkable turnaround but— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, my apologies to you. You were listening. I was actually referring to Senator McDonald. I think your jackets are the same colour! Senator Sterle, a second supplementary? 15:00 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Recently, the minister attended a ministerial meeting on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework with some of Australia's key trading partners. Could the minister provide an update to the Senate on progress towards agreeing further pillars of the framework, including expected trade benefits for Australia? 15:01 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sterle for his supplementary question. Of course, with my good friends the Americans, I met with— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N My very good friends the Americans! The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework brings together 14 of the most dynamic and fastest-growing economies in the Indo-Pacific region, with members making up over 40 per cent of global GDP. This month I participated in a virtual IPEC ministerial meeting with my very good friend the United States Commerce Secretary, Gina Raimondo, which involved the release of key text of agreements. An important agreement under IPEC is the supply chain agreement. When implemented, the supply chain agreement will help address concentrations in critical supply chains and promote Australia's— (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 65 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 65 15:02 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. Well, it has all been laid bare today. My good friend and colleague Senator Askew asked a very straightforward and serious question about exactly what the putative Premier of Tasmania, Rebecca White, the member for Lyons in the Tasmanian parliament, had done in terms of preparing for her promises to the Tasmanian people around health in particular. But our acting leader, Senator Cash, has pointed out what she hasn't done. Because the answer that was provided to Senator Askew highlighted in fact that Ms White, the leader of the Labor Party in Tasmania, didn't even bother to pick up the phone. She did not ask once the Australian Labor government, the Albanese government, her very good friends. You would think her federal counterparts would be able to have a conversation with her about whether she can make promises like the ones she has. Now, Labor are not good with money. They never have been despite what they say— Senator Cash I0M And never will be. Senator DUNIAM 263418 That is absolutely right. That includes when it comes to these promises that are being made about health funding in Tasmania. We have a stretched health system. It requires huge investments and, yes, the Commonwealth government has over a very long period of time supported the state of Tasmania in these crucial investments. Ms White, the Labor leader, has gone around Tasmania telling people that she, in partnership with the Australian Labor government, will fund massive infrastructure projects in all of our hospitals—the Royal Hobart Hospital, the Launceston General Hospital, the Mersey Community Hospital and the North-West Regional Hospital. As it turns out, those promises haven't been funded. Not a dollar of the hundreds of millions of dollars that Rebecca White, the Labor leader in Tasmania, has promised will be funded. Not once has she bothered to check with the Australian government's health minister, Mr Butler. Not a cent will be funded. It's quite disappointing, but it is not surprising, because we expect nothing more than that. Tasmanians want the truth when it comes to promises being made about their health system. Much has been made by the Australian Labor Party and the Tasmanian Labor Party about what's happening in our health system in Tasmania. This is why I'm so incredibly disappointed that Ms White, whom I respect, has gone so low as to make promises to the Tasmanian people she knows she can't keep. There is no way to understand how much they are going to be able to fund from Australian government coffers to make her promises work. By contrast, however, we've seen the Tasmanian government, the Rockliff government, put forward a sustainable plan, one that is fully costed and funded. They've been managing the health service in Tasmania in an exemplary way for the last decade. I want to talk about the number of nurses that were cut in the years up to 2014, when the Labor Party had been in government for 16 years—the last four of which, I might add, were in partnership with the Tasmanian contingent of that mad crew, the Australian Greens. Two of them were ministers in the Tasmanian government. We saw nurses sacked, hospital wards closed down and beds from hospitals put into storage. This is exactly what we're going to see again if Tasmanians even think twice about voting for the Tasmanian Labor Party, because you know exactly what's going to happen: they're going do another deal with the Greens. You're going to see Vica Bayley and Rosalie Woodruff, the two Greens members of the Tasmanian parliament, in cabinet with Premier White. That is a nightmare recipe right there, and it will result in exactly the same things that we have been warning about for a long time. So proven— Senator DUNIAM 263418 I will take the interjection from the acting leader. A coalition of chaos—that's exactly what it will be. There is no way that Rebecca White, the Tasmanian Labor leader, can ever govern in majority. It will always be, particularly in the lead-up to this election, with the support of the Tasmanian Greens. That is why, I must say, this is something Tasmanians need to know. The Albanese Labor government didn't even know they'd made those promises—those hundreds of millions of dollars of federal money that had been promised to the people of Tasmania on behalf of the Albanese Labor government. It's a con, it is a joke and it is something Tasmanians cannot trust. So, as we hurtle towards Saturday and as Tasmanians cast their vote, I'll look forward to engaging in some sparkling, glittering, gleaming repartee with Senator Polley on the Sky News panel on Saturday night. When we analyse the results, we are going to be quite the beacon on Saturday night, as we are able to stand out and shine for people to see what the truth is. But people will cast their vote on the day, and I hope it's Liberal. 15:08 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I listened with a great deal of glee, of course, because we have a very serious issue in this country about the cost of living. Labor have put up a number of suggestions about how we deal with that. One of the questions we were asked was about the new vehicle fuel efficiency standard, which will actually be good not only for the hip pocket but for the environment. Of course, those opposite have finally caught on to the cost-of-living question about this, because the reality is that it will drive down costs and improve the environment. But, when they start talking about the cost of living, of course they always avoid talking about all the other details of the cost of living, because they have voted against every initiative that this government has put forward to drive down cost-of-living pressures on everyday Australians. When it comes to electricity bill relief, the average family would have been $230 worse off last year without Labor's Energy Price Relief Plan, and, of course, the coalition voted against it because they vote against every initiative, whether it's car fuel efficiency or electricity bill relief. But don't worry. There's more they vote against when it comes to the cost of living—not only EVs but boosting income support payments, which is increasing support payments by $40 a fortnight, or over $1,040 a year. The coalition voted against that. There's building more affordable homes and the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will build 30,000 social and affordable homes. The coalition voted against this. So this is what happens when it comes to cost of living, whether it's EVs, electricity bill relief, boosting income support payments or building more affordable homes. And there's more. When it's about creating jobs and getting wages moving again, the largest increase to the minimum wage in decades was under Labor. The minimum wage grew by 8.6 per cent, or $1.85 an hour. Based on a 38-hour week, this is a $3,655 yearly raise. And of course the coalition voted against it, because they always vote against cost-of-living relief that helps everyday Australians. They think there's some magical trickle-down thing. No, you actually go out there, go to people, work out what's affecting the community and make a change. The important part of the change that we've made is with regard to cost of living with new vehicle efficiency standards. The coalition can't look at the cost of living on new vehicles, because they can't see it even in the IR reforms that we did. Criminalising wage theft? They voted against it. Stronger protections for employees subject to family and domestic violence? They voted against that. When it came to closing the labour hire loopholes that Alan Joyce used to illegally sack his workforce and replace them with cheap, disposable labour hire, they voted against that. It goes on and on. What about helping casuals get secure jobs? Whether it's fuel efficiency, IR reforms, electricity bill relief, boosting income support payments, or creating jobs and getting wages moving again, on every occasion they vote against it. It goes on. They also voted against ensuring truck drivers earn enough money that they don't have to work themselves to death. They voted against that. Not only are they voting against more-fuel-efficient vehicles that many drivers use in their everyday lives; they're voting against more opportunities for people to save money and help the environment. You can do two things at once. But no; when it comes to truck drivers and IR reform, they vote against better vehicles, fuel efficiency, the environment, people's hip pocket and truck drivers earning enough not to have to work themselves to death. When you start looking at that, you also see that many of those workers out there in the transport industry are gig workers. They voted against gig workers getting paid a reasonable enough amount that they don't have to kill themselves getting their work done so they can put food on the table. Now, I know there are some good people on the other side—and not only are they good people but they actually have some real understanding of these issues. But their party voted against some of the most highly exploited people in the Australian economy, who get paid by piece way below the minimum wage, without workers comp and without safety. By the way, many of you use vehicles or get a benefit and the option to go to electric vehicles. They voted against them as well. Everywhere you look, they vote against everyone. For the people who actually can get the benefits across the Australian economy from these changes that we've made, you keep turning around and driving down. 15:13 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Across Australia over the next few days, Liberals in our home state of Western Australia, Senator Cash, in New South Wales and, indeed, in South Australia will be wishing the Tasmanian Liberal Party all the very best of good campaign fortune as Tasmanians go to the polls. We'll be wishing them all the very best of good campaign fortune because we don't want Tasmanians to be subject to the 'coalition of chaos', as it was called by Senator Duniam. We don't want them to have to suffer the same sort of bad Labor policies that the rest of the country is experiencing as a result of having elected Anthony Albanese and the Labor government in May 2022. Indeed, in our own state of Western Australia we don't want Tasmanians to have to suffer the same sorts of bad policies and poor economic management that Western Australians have seen first under Premier McGowan and now under Roger Cook. We know that, when Labor is in government, things go astray. Just to follow on from Senator Sheldon's comments on cost-of-living challenges, they are very real for Australians. That's whether they're in Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia or your home state of New South Wales. They are struggling under the cumulative effect—just think about that—of layer upon layer of interest rate rises. They're struggling at supermarket check-outs as cost-of-living pressures are seen and realised on the shelves of our shops. Indeed, as we talked about yesterday, Senator Sheldon, their ability to travel and stay connected with loved ones is suffering as a result of the government's inaction on high airline prices. In my home state of Western Australia, they have much to be concerned and disappointed about, having now lived for about two years under a federal Labor government. What has that seen? I see Senator Sterle from Western Australia mocking, but let's just think about this. A ban on live sheep exports cost the Western Australian economy $120 million and cost the livelihoods of regional families, Senator Sterle, that you often come into this chamber and defend. The trucking industry will be imperilled as a result of a ban on live sheep exports. They're regional communities that you quite rightly come to this place to stand up for, argue for and barrack for. I'll give you credit for that, but you can't have it both ways. You can't come here and say you barrack for these people and then sit idly by when the government continues with a ban that will decimate rural and regional communities across our state. Just to add to that, the changes to the industrial relations system have been said by the peak people in Western Australian business to make it harder for Australian companies to succeed and grow in Western Australia. Think about that for a moment. The 120,000 Western Australian workers who work in our resources industry and the families that are supported by them are all being imperilled by the industrial relations policy being pursued by this government. Just add to that the $10 million decision to fund the EDO, which is like a wrecking ball across Western Australia's resources industry. That resources industry doesn't just make Western Australians wealthy; it improves the living standards of every Australian. This afternoon is not the time to talk about the GST debate, but no doubt when we come back during the budget session GST matters will be top of mind. When Tasmanians go to the polls on Saturday, they don't have to look too far to see the risk and peril of electing a Tasmanian Labor government, who I hear is hand in glove with the Greens. They don't have to look too far to see the evidence that Labor is bad news for Tasmania in the same way that it's been bad news for Western Australia and bad news for Australia. 15:18 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I can't believe how lucky I am today, because I just want to correct the record. Senator Smith is a long-time, proud Western Australian, is a long-time activist and employee in the road transport industry and has been self-employed. I do love it when you talk about the transport industry in Western Australia, but I couldn't wait to tell my mates in WA that Senator Smith, Senator Cash and all the Western Aussies could not wait to vote down the transport reform that we voted on here two weeks ago. I do love the way you talk about how, all of a sudden, you've had a road-to-Damascus moment and that you love the trucking industry. I just wish it was here when the truckies needed you—when you, led by Senator Cash, tipped a bucket of bile on the transport industry when you stood up for the mining industry. Let me get this really clear for people. The transport industry throughout Australia was absolutely united for transport reform. There was not one blowout. Not one organisation went to the papers and made adverse commentary. But you kicked them in the guts with the Minerals Council of Australia. These poor devils, the miners! God help us if they have to pay the same pay for the same job. Isn't that right, Senator Sheldon? We should never impose that on the miners. Everyone else can pay but why should the poor miners? The Minerals Council of Australia, led by Ms Tania Constable, hand-in-hand with the National Farmers Federation—and I won't waste too much oxygen on them—the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and COSBOA, put $24 million of their members' money was into a campaign to deny the Australian trucking industry reform. God help them if Australia's transport industry could be paid on time, could be respected, could be safe and could be sustainable and viable. They won't forget that. I will never forget that and I will keep reminding those opposite about it. It is a shame we have lost Senator Smith. He obviously has something else he has to go to. I understand that; we all have those issues around here. But I am now going to make a heartfelt offer here from the bottom of my heart. I did 16 years as a furniture removalist with Ansett Wridgways before I moved on from that. I still have a bit of experience. I can still lump a bit of furniture. I can actually walk into your kitchen and pack all your valuables. I can walk into your lounge room or your bedroom; I can do the whole lot. I'll get the cartons because I've got mates in the removal industry—not a problem. I'll get all the wine cartons. I'll get the port-a-robes for your clothes. I'll even pull the tape out and gnash it with my teeth to set the cartons up. Hell, you know what, Senator Smith? I might even give up a weekend to come around and do all the loading for you for free. I'll have a word to my mates in the trucking industry and I'll happily pack up your home, pack you and your partner up, and get you over to Tassie. If that is where you want to be, Senator Smith, sing out. I've been known to be a very generous person with my old skills in the removal industry. If Western Australia is that bad a place to live, go. We're not holding you there. I'm not holding you there. I'm proud to say that I've been in Western Australia since 1960. I am not leaving the best part of Australia. This nonsense to carry on about how hard-done-by Western Australians are. For crying out loud, we had the best leadership through the pandemic; we had the best premier; we had the best system. Not one Western Australian in this place could whinge, because we didn't suffer the lockdowns that were witnessed around Australia; we didn't suffer all these days of not being able to see family. In fact, in WA, if I remember rightly, we had two lockdowns. The first one was a couple of weeks, I think. But then under that brilliant leadership of the Labor government—Mark McGowan and the health minister at the time Roger Cook, who is now our Premier and a damn good Premier—we enjoyed life as normal. There were a few constraints upon us. We couldn't go into remote Aboriginal communities or nursing homes unless we had been isolating for two weeks. We still went out, we still went to pubs and we still went to restaurants. Yes, we had to socially distance and all that sort of stuff. But I have to tell you, any Western Australian who sits in here and reckons Western Australia is that bad, go and talk to your Victorian mates about some of the pressures they had. As I said, Senator Smith, from the bottom of my heart, and I have been known to be very generous, I'm very happy to come and pack you up, talk to my removalist mates and get you out of Western Australia if that is what you so desire. And, if you want to go to Tassie, I can organise that, too. 15:23 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I was reassured to hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, affirm that the United States' relationship is so important to Australia's security and describe the United States as our closest ally and potential strategic partner, because this issue has been a little confused over the last few days, after Senator Farrell, the trade minister, remarked that he wouldn't describe the United States as necessarily our closest ally. I'm very fond of New Zealand. We have a close relationship, a close economic relationship—a number of economic and trade ties and people-to-people ties. But, undoubtedly and overwhelmingly, the United States has always been our most important security, defence, strategic and intelligence partner, and that relationship is incredibly valuable to Australia. It is a force multiplier. It allows us a reach an insight and set of capabilities that would simply not be accessible to us given the size we are and given the amount of the national budget that we spend on defence. When it comes to these issues, words matter, and unity of purpose and messaging matters. That's why the comments from Senator Farrell earlier in the week, which were not in response to the question that was being asked, were an unnecessary distraction, and I'm glad they've been cleared up. I would say that they fit a pattern of a sense of growing division with our partner, the United States. We've seen in recent days, for instance, the government make the decision to restore funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency. This is the UN agency which has been entrusted, in part, with providing humanitarian assistance to the displaced Palestinian population since 1948, but which was credibly involved with and complicit in the Hamas terrorist attacks of 7 October. Bear in mind that, within hours of UNRWA receiving allegations that 12 of their employees were directly involved in these attacks, they had dismissed nine of them. It was not after some sort of judicial inquiry or due process. They dismissed them immediately, which suggest these allegations were credible. Of course, these allegations were so serious that the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services has been tasked with conducting an investigation, and a former French foreign minister has been appointed to lead their own inquiry. Neither of these investigations or inquiries has concluded yet. It cannot be said that UNRWA has been given a clean bill of health. We have made the decision, in advance of the United States, to restore our funding to UNRWA, seemingly without having any independent evidence, assurance or confirmation that UNRWA has dealt with this issue of their complicity in the 7 October terrorist attacks and seemingly without any sort of assurances or commitments that steps, measures or safeguards have been put in place to prevent such an instance from happening again. We also saw division with the United States in our voting on the ceasefire resolution in Gaza. Members here would recall that, when that resolution was initially put before the general assembly, Australia abstained. But, on 13 December, when a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire—the implication of which would be to leave Hamas in power—was put to the general assembly, Australia voted in favour of that resolution, whilst the United States voted against that resolution. So we have been seeing an increasing divergence of our position from the United States on important issues of international security—the funding to UN bodies and the current conflict in the Middle East. That is why the comments of Senator Farrell were so concerning. I did also wish to take note of Senator Wong's response to Senator Paterson's questions about the composition of the National Security Committee of cabinet. Let me just say that, in these sorts of issues, it is incredibly important that the people with the most expertise, the most intimate knowledge of our security and intelligence relationships and the access to the most information—our liaison and dialogue partners with our Five Eyes intelligence partners, the director-general of ASIO and the directors-general of ASIS—have a seat at the decision-making table, have their voices heard, are not added in ad hoc and are not only consulted when it's convenient but are always present for these discussions. That was always the practice under past coalition governments, and I very much hope that that remains the practice under this current government. Question agreed to. International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 69 15:28 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note the answer by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination I take note of the minister's weak and hollow response to my question about scrapping Harmony Week, a tokenistic, whitewashed celebration. Today is marked around the world as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In Australia the Howard government introduced Harmony Day, a hollow, skin-deep celebration of diversity, which ignores the whole point of 21 March, which is to acknowledge and eliminate racism in all its forms. In 2019 the Morrison government took this watering down of racism even further by introducing a whole Harmony Week, a week-long tokenistic celebration of inclusion which whitewashes historic and ongoing racism in Australia. I'm calling on the Labor government to ditch these Liberal-era initiatives that obfuscate the reality of racism and hinder the real action needed for a genuinely equal society. Labor should instead replace Harmony Week with a week of antiracism so we can have an honest reckoning with white privilege and systemic racism. The Greens were the first to create an antiracism portfolio, four years ago, recognising the need to grapple with the scale of the challenge, and it is high time for the government to establish an antiracism portfolio in cabinet to have a sharp focus on eliminating racism. It is incredibly telling that, in responses to my questions on ditching Harmony Week and creating an antiracism portfolio, the minister put it back on the community to tackle racism, rather than taking responsibility of leading on antiracism work. Racism is structural in this country. It harms people and communities every single day, but governments are not even capable of acknowledging the depth and breadth of racial discrimination that started with the violent colonisation and dispossession and goes on to this day for First Nations people and for culturally and racially marginalised people. Today is also the National Close the Gap Day, and, sadly, we are so far away from closing the gap. The latest Closing the gap report shows only four of 19 areas are on track for improvement. Adult imprisonment, suicide, rates of children in out-of-home care and early development are areas that are getting much worse. We cannot really tackle racism until there is justice for First Nations people—until we have truth-telling and treaties. While tackling racism remains a long and hard battle in Australia, this government and others prior have done a remarkably good job of pretending we don't have a racism blind spot in this country, pretending there is no serious or systemic racism here, pretending all is well and ignoring the voices of the oppressed. Racism is flung around so easily in this chamber, whether it is mispronouncing someone's name despite being corrected time and time again, whether it is the stereotypes that are very often flippantly joked about, whether it is the ugly rhetoric around 'illegals' and migrants taking Australian jobs, or whether it is the bipartisan agreement on treating refugees and asylum seekers as cruelly and as inhumanely as possible. For those of us on the receiving end, it is exhausting. We are tired of seeing another year roll past since the Christchurch Mosque massacre with barely a murmur from the government and with not even a national antiracism strategy in sight for another few years. We are tired of seeing migrants being used as scapegoats for governments neglecting the housing and cost-of-living crises. And we are angry at seeing the Labor government support the apartheid and genocidal State of Israel that is murdering tens of thousands of Palestinians and forcefully starving children. We are tired of being gaslit and ridiculed and told that we are dividing the community when we highlight racism as a problem, as if we are the problem and not racism. We are tired of being used as props at Harmony Day celebrations as governments fail to address racism. These events may provide a fleeting sense of inclusion, but they distract from the need for meaningful change and societal shifts towards genuine racial equity and racial justice. These box-ticking celebrations appear inclusive, while the real issues we face fall by the wayside. Until real action is taken, until there is meaningful change, Harmony Week will be nothing but a mask that hides racism. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee, Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, Treaties Joint Committee 70 Report 70 15:33 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human Rights Scrutiny Report: report 2 of 2024. On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present advisory reports on the amendments made by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, on the citizenship cessation determinations, and on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 214th report of the committee. DOCUMENTS 70 DOCUMENTS Consideration 70 COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Consideration 70 DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel, Department of Social Services 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 15:38 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia by leave—I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Barossa gas project, the final report of the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel and the National Housing and Homelessness Plan. MOTIONS 71 MOTIONS Great Barrier Reef 71 15:40 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that, on 20 March 2024, the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization confirmed that 2023 was the hottest year on record by a clear margin, projecting a potential breach of the critical 1.5 degrees Celsius warming threshold and that: (i) at 2 degrees Celsius warming 99% of the world's coral reefs will die, (ii) the Great Barrier Reef is currently experiencing the fifth mass coral bleaching event in 8 years, and (iii) 64,000 jobs and a $6 billion tourism industry are reliant on a living, healthy and protected Great Barrier Reef; (b) condemns the Albanese Labor Government's continued approvals for new coal, oil and gas mines, which do not align with settled climate science on what is required to keep warming within the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold needed to protect the future of the Great Barrier Reef; and (c) calls on the Minister for Environment and Water to stop approving new coal and gas mines and urgently visit the Great Barrier Reef to witness the mass bleaching and mortality of corals firsthand. I look forward to contributions in the chamber from fellow senators. I just wanted to start by framing up where we are in history by reading some details today from the World Meteorological Organization's State of the global climate report, which has confirmed that 2023 has broken every single climate indicator that the meteorological organisation monitors and publishes. The report was named literally 'off the charts'. Looking back at 2023, the UN agency's annual State of the global climate report confirmed 2023 was the hottest year on record since records have begun. Ocean heat, which is directly related to our discussion here today about the Great Barrier Reef, has reached its highest level since records began. Global mean sea level rise reached a record high. Antarctic sea ice retreated to a record low. The report found that, on an average day in 2023, nearly one-third of the global ocean was gripped by a marine heatwave, harming vital ecosystems and food systems. This was well above the previous record of 23 per cent, set in the previous warmest ocean year of 2016. It noted that heating is expected to continue, with reports stating it could be irreversible on scales of hundreds to thousands of years. Senators, consider that. Consider the marine heatwaves we are seeing around the planet. The World Meteorological Organization is saying these changes could be irreversible for hundreds and thousands of years. In other words, some of the marine ecosystems we have been lucky enough to grow up with, like the Great Barrier Reef, could be seeing irreversible harm. Glaciers in North America and the European Alps have suffered massive losses after experiencing what's called 'extreme melt', according to the World Meteorological Organization. In Switzerland, glaciers lost around 10 per cent of their remaining volume in the last two years. Concentrations of the three main greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide—all reached record-high observed levels. The report stated: The long-term increase in global temperature is due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It goes on, for anyone who wants to read it. But it says at the end that climate change is currently being hampered by a lack of capacity to deliver and use climate services to inform national mitigation and adaption plans. Of course, mitigation means reducing emissions, tackling global warming and climate change at its root cause—reducing emissions especially in developing countries. So Australia, a nation girt by sea, boasts one of the world's great treasures, the Great Barrier Reef, an ecosystem so big, it can be seen from space, a global treasure declared a UNESCO World Heritage site because of its outstanding universal values. These are the same values which are directly in danger from these marine heatwaves, which are spreading not just along the Great Barrier Reef but along coral reefs all around the world and ecosystems all around the south of our beautiful island home. Where I live in Tasmania we're still seeing record heat and loss of habitat. All our oceans are groaning under the strain of marine heatwaves. In reading this report today, I reflect on when I came into this place in 2012. I had a pretty good idea about marine conservation, climate change and why I wanted to go into the Senate, but, if you had told me 12 years ago that I would be standing here today, on a Thursday afternoon in 2024, reading out this list of catastrophic impacts on our oceans from our warming planet, I wouldn't have believed you. The step changes we are seeing are very alarming. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 You might find that amusing, Senator Urquhart, but I don't. Senator Urquhart 231199 I would ask Senator Whish-Wilson to withdraw that. I may have been grinning, but it certainly wasn't at anything he said. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I withdraw that. And this is on us. Every environmental problem you can name is first and foremost a political problem because only politics, politicians and political pathways can fix it. Not only are we not acting anywhere near fast enough on rising global emissions; we're actually trying to deny at the most official levels that the Great Barrier Reef and its outstanding universal values—exactly why UNESCO declared it of world heritage value—are in danger. We're actually out there lobbying to deny that it's in danger from these marine heatwaves caused by the burning of fossil fuels. I don't need to remind senators in this chamber of the contribution Australia makes not just through its own emissions footprint but in the exports of fossil fuels. We have an inherent conflict of interest here as a nation that is one of the biggest exporters and highest per capita polluters on the planet as well as the custodian of this global treasure. It's high time we recognise that we need to do everything we possibly can to save the Great Barrier Reef. While reefs can recover from coral bleaching, they won't recover if we see increased frequency and intensity of these marine heatwaves. While we're weeks away from finding out the extent of the current mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef—by the way, senators and everyone in the chamber today: this is the fifth mass coral bleaching that we've seen on the Great Barrier Reef in eight years. The first recorded coral bleaching was in 1998. The second was the year I started in the Senate: 2012. The reef at least had time to recover from those coral bleachings. We have now seen five in eight years, including back-to-back bleachings, which our best climate models predicted wasn't possible until 2050. We've already seen that. Unfortunately, the early indications are that this fifth mass coral bleaching in the last eight years is going to be a bad one. What will we do to reflect on that? Will we try to cover it up at UNESCO? Will we send ministers and senior bureaucrats to go to UNESCO to lobby against an 'endangered' listing? Why would we be hiding the fact that the reef is dying on our watch and it's our fault? Why would we possibly do that when letting the world know the truth about the barrier reef—in fact, all the world's coral reefs—might just be the siren we need to get action. Half a billion people around the world rely on coral reefs for their livelihoods. I don't need to remind senators about the 64,000 jobs on the Great Barrier Reef, the tourism industry that brings in people from all around the world and the contribution to our economy. It's all at risk if this continues. Let's look at the predictions. Our best science, through the IPCC, tells us that if we get to two degrees of warming above preindustrial levels, we will see a 99 per cent decline in coral reefs all around the world, including the Great Barrier Reef. Where are we at now? Some forecasts already have us at 1.5 degrees warming above preindustrial levels. It's already happening. As I've just mentioned, there have been five mass-bleaching events from marine heatwaves in eight years. Imagine what two degrees is going to be like. In fact, imagine what three degrees warming is going to be like for future generations. That is the legacy we are leaving them by hiding the fact that the Great Barrier Reef is in danger if we don't act. A few weeks ago, when I asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water for an update, she was unable to provide that because she didn't have a brief. I've had a quick look at the social media of the environment minister, Minister Plibersek. I've seen one video that she's done from her office about this greatest of global tragedies that's unfolding right before our very eyes in real time. We don't just talk about the environmental impacts of this. We also talk about the impacts on humans, communities and their livelihoods. We need to act. We need a political pathway to act. People will not vote for climate action and vote for change if they are being deceived about what is going on below the waves and below the water. Well, I've seen it firsthand, and I know that others in this chamber have also seen it. It's only going to get worse unless we act. The only way we're going to fix it is in places like the Australian Senate and in the Australian parliament, by showing some leadership on the global stage and not trying to deceive and cover up what is actually going on with the Great Barrier Reef. Today, I call on the federal environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, to go to the Great Barrier Reef. Go and have a look for yourself, and make a video from the Great Barrier Reef. Make a video to show the world what's going on. Why would we hide this? I'll leave you to decide what the possible motivations might be. When I chaired the first Senate inquiry into warming oceans in 2016-17, we visited the Great Barrier Reef. It appeared to me that it was the tourism industry that didn't want to talk about the reef being in danger from global warming, but it has also occurred to me that there are a lot of other vested interests that don't want to see UNESCO recognising the absolute peril that the Great Barrier Reef is in, like fossil fuel interests that donate to big political parties and governments that don't want to be forced to act. We are not going to let you off the hook. People are waking up to the fact that the planet is changing and not for the better. Oceans are absolutely critical to our communities right around the country. Next week, members of the Great Southern Reef Foundation, abalone fishers, sea urchin fishers and processors are coming to Canberra to talk about the changes they are seeing underwater on the Great Southern Reef. The Great Southern Reef, sister of the Great Barrier Reef, also has the scourge of invasive species or overabundant native species, like long-spined sea urchins. The Great Southern Reef is getting next to no funding from Parliament House in Canberra. It is arguably more important than the Great Barrier Reef in so many ways, given its contribution to the Australian economy and the number of people who are employed in commercial fishing sectors that are suffering because of warming oceans, marine heatwaves and rising emissions. We have to act not just for future generations but for communities right around the country, and when you see oyster farmers going out of business in New South Wales, which was also reported this week, because of unprecedented record high sea temperatures off the coast of New South Wales, you realise the economic costs of not acting. This government, just like previous governments, can fly around the world and lobby countries at UNESCO to vote against an endangered listing, but it's not going to help. It's not going to make any difference to the Great Barrier Reef. If we continue on this trajectory of burning more fossil fuels and not acting on mitigating emissions then the reef, as we have been lucky enough to know it in our lifetimes, will be gone. It is already in a sad state of affairs right now, and it will only get worse if, in places like the Australian parliament, we don't do what's required to safeguard the future of the reef. 15:55 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I have struggled with my voice this week, so hopefully Broadcasting can help me out if I'm a little bit quiet. This is an important debate and so, as the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, I'm going to push through, and thank you for your indulgence. The truth is that our government is doing more than any other government has done to reduce emissions, to reach net zero, to transition our energy market, to invest in renewables, to work with our partners around the world and to tackle to climate change, which is a risk to coral reefs around the globe, including the Great Barrier Reef. Our government is doing more than any other government has done previously. And the truth is very different from that put by the mover of this motion, Senator Whish-Wilson, and that is that, after a disgraceful decade of denial and delay on climate policy, a motion from the Greens political party in this chamber won't help the Great Barrier Reef, but action by members on this side of the chamber, by a Labor government, will. That is why we are working to take action on climate change and to protect the Great Barrier Reef. In my contribution today I will do the same thing that I've done every day since being appointed as the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef: I will talk about the facts of the reef because I know there is some misleading information out there. Our government has been transparent and accountable when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef's health. I'll talk about the action that we're taking to protect the Great Barrier Reef, to ensure that it is resilient against climate change, and I'll talk about how we're bringing people together on this task, because the one thing that the mover of this motion won't admit is that we can't take action on climate change and improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef alone; we must do that in partnership with countries around the world and we must do that with communities across the country, but particularly in regional Queensland. What we don't want to do is divide and make this a political debate about who is right and who is wrong and not accepting the science. What we need is to bring everyone together so that we can walk this journey together and ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is protected for generations to come. I live in regional Queensland. I'm surrounded by some of the world's most incredible natural assets. I have the World Heritage listed Wet Tropics rainforest on the one side and the Great Barrier Reef on the other. The reef is literally my backyard, and so, as someone who lives and breathes our unique natural environment, having the privilege of being the Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef is something that I take extremely seriously. I also have a deep sense of responsibility to the task at hand, the challenges we face and the future that we leave behind because, while this might be a debate today in Canberra, I'd argue that senators from Queensland understand this is about Queensland communities. We can have a motion moved by a Tasmanian senator but, when we talk about the Great Barrier Reef, we're talking about the lives and livelihoods of people in Queensland, and so I will talk from that experience, as I always do. Our precious Great Barrier Reef is currently experiencing a coral bleaching event. Aerial surveys conducted in recent weeks by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science confirm that there is a widespread bleaching occurring at the moment. Those two agencies, based in North Queensland, up there in Townsville, have been reporting on the health of the reef every single week since the start of summer. They have been transparent and accountable, and they have been doing incredibly good work. I will not have the work that they've been doing disparaged by those in this chamber. They have been making sure that they've been keeping people up to date. Unfortunately, the news that they had to deliver in the last couple of weeks has been difficult news for them to share as well. Those scientists suggest that the heat stress has not been even across the reef and that coral bleaching observed has been variable, but we know that in the next couple of weeks, in-water surveys will collect data to help us understand the extent of the bleaching. For example, this will tell us whether there is evidence of bleaching at deeper reef habitats or whether this is contained to shallow waters. It is also important to note that bleaching of corals does not always result in coral mortality. If conditions cool, there is an ability for corals to recover. We've seen this occur with previous bleaching events, although, as we know, having these events closer together is making it more difficult for reefs to recover. This is the predicament that we are in. There have been high winds and swell over the last week, which has resulted in sea surface temperatures starting to drop, but the fact is that we won't know the full impact of this event until it ends. This is the difficult news for many to take. Many Australians and citizens across the globe may be concerned at the reports, and this is completely understandable. It is our national treasure, and people come from far away to experience what the reef has to offer. I want to acknowledge, rather than disparage or discredit, our tourism operators. I want to acknowledge the work they're doing, because many of them are incredible custodians of the reef and spend more time out there than most. They also have a big stake in this. I want to thank them for their ongoing work during this period, being another set of eyes and ears on the water. Of course, we know that there is no quick fix or silver bullet in this equation, but what this does highlight is the need for action on climate change. It is the biggest threat to our Great Barrier Reef and reefs across the world. It highlights the need not for motions in the Senate but for government actions. We are a government that has taken decisive action when it comes to climate change. In fact, as those in this chamber know, one of our first acts in government was to enshrine emissions reductions targets into legislation. We know that the most important thing that we can do right now is to deliver on those emissions reduction targets, to increase our renewable energy use and to ensure that we are taking action on climate change after 10 years of delay and denial under the previous government. We have rectified the appalling track record of climate action under the Liberals and Nationals. I am angry and saddened that we lost a decade under a government that were climate change denialists and that refused to accept the science. The science was always up for debate under the Liberal and National parties—it always was and it continues to be. The science has been telling us for a while now that temperatures are rising, and here we are again having this debate. Of course, before the Liberal government, there were others in the chamber who tore down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, again costing us valuable time. There were 10 years of delay and denial, assisted by those in the chamber who now cry and now call for action. Yet when they had the opportunity 10 years ago, they refused to take it. But now, under a Labor government, we are on a credible path to net zero and we are transitioning our economy to a low-carbon one. This is to give the reef the best chance to be healthy. It's a diverse ecosystem. We need to respond to the challenge of climate change, which is what we are doing. We also need to ensure that there are effective management actions in place. In Australia, our reef is very well managed. The reef authority and AIMS are world-class. They need to be supported in the jobs that they do, which is exactly why our government delivered more than $163 million in last year's budget to ensure that AIMS remains at the forefront of marine science and continues developing innovative solutions to protect the reef. In partnership with the Queensland government, we're investing $4.7 billion to protect the reef's resilience. We're getting on with the job. We're working in catchments with farmers, traditional owners and scientists to improve the quality of the water that flows into the reef. We're doing practical things, like remediating stream banks to reduce nutrient run-off. We're controlling crown-of-thorns starfish, which feed on coral. The teams out on the water have had great success, and they're using the data they're receiving from this monitoring to change their management plan and react quickly. We're phasing out the use of gillnets in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area by mid-2027 and transitioning to more sustainable fishing practices. We know that the zoning legislation 20 years ago was controversial, but we know that it was important for the reef, because when you protect the marine park you protect the reef. Importantly, we're reforming Australia's environment laws—a critical piece of work that the previous government failed to acknowledge. Beyond our shores, we've worked incredibly hard to restore our international credibility when it comes to climate change and the environment. We are among the best reef managers in the world, and we're proud to share that reputation. Last year, we had confirmation that the World Heritage Committee would not list the Great Barrier Reef as endangered, and, despite those opposite down this end of the chamber, this is a good outcome for the reef. It doesn't by any stretch mean that the work is over. It really is just the beginning. I reject accusations from those down the other end of the chamber. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 It's a con job; a complete political con job. Senator GREEN 259819 Point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Just a moment please. Senator GREEN 259819 I listened to you in silence, but you have to speak the whole way through my contribution. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Green, please take your seat. I remind the chamber that everyone deserves the respect of being heard in silence. Senator Whish-Wilson, I remind you of that. Senator Green, you have the call. Please continue. Senator GREEN 259819 It's very uncomfortable for Senator Whish-Wilson to hear someone on this side of the chamber say this—that we should be working with our partners around the world, that we should be talking to UNESCO and that we should be working with them constructively. We have been accountable and transparent in the information that we have been giving not only to our partners at UNESCO but also to people around the world. We monitor and publish data on the reef like no other country in the entire world. To insinuate that there has been any attempt at deception is untrue and unfair to the incredible people who work on the reef every single day. We know that we cannot act alone. Those down the end might want Australia to sit in isolation on this, but we want to work with those people around the world. We know that there has never been a more important or critical time. I know people around the country, particularly in Queensland, are eager to take practical action, so I have a really good suggestion for the dear senator down here: work with us and work with the people in Queensland to deliver on these actions, and that includes working with the Queensland government. The truth is that, leading into the rest of the year, we have a lot of work to do, and there is something that will put that work at risk. We need the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, David Crisafulli, to rule out cutting funding to the joint management program, rule out repealing the water quality regulations, say that he supports the ban on destructive gillnet fishing and refuse to overturn the ban if his government is elected. We need bipartisanship not just here but also in Queensland on these important reef protection measures. The biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef is climate change, but what we've seen over the last 10 years in this place is that the LNP is a close second. So what I would call on Queenslanders to do while they deal with this news is think carefully about who is protecting the reef and who is silent on it. We haven't heard much from David Crisafulli, and we hear things from the other side of the chamber all the time that deny the science around the Great Barrier Reef. I hope we don't hear the same things from the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland. Our government is doing more than any other government has done to take action on climate change. We know that it's important for our energy transition. We know it's important for us to keep up with the rest of the world. We know it's important not to lose those opportunities when it comes to investing in renewable energy. But we also know that it's important to the Great Barrier Reef. We want the Great Barrier Reef to be there for generations to come because there are so many jobs in Queensland and around the country that rely on the Great Barrier Reef. The LNP put the reef at risk in real terms and reputationally. Our government has turned that around, and we'll continue to do that. We'll continue to work in partnership with Queenslanders, with traditional owners, with scientists, with landholders and with tourism operators. We are working together in partnership to deliver the action required, and that's more than any motion in the Senate would ever achieve under those at the end of the chamber. 16:11 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I welcome this notice of motion from Senator Whish-Wilson because it gives us an opportunity to have a real discussion, a real debate about what is happening in Australia and in the world, and to talk about practical measures, not ideology. If I can, I will start with the Great Barrier Reef. Once again, there's this hysterical kind of discussion. It's about only ever wanting to listen to one side of what they hear. The latest bleaching has shown that, of the 3,000 estimated reefs across the Great Barrier Reef, only 300 reefs have been surveyed. Not all areas have been surveyed; only shallow reefs have been surveyed, not deepwater ones. Not all of them have been bleached yet, if we were to listen to these hysterical words from a Tasmanian senator, this is a disaster. In actual fact, we are coming off record coral cover over the last two years. This is something that the Greens don't want to acknowledge and won't acknowledge. Roger Beeden, the chief scientist at GBRMPA, in a press release this month, said: It is important to note, that the heat stress has not been even across the Reef, and the coral bleaching observed is variable. … … … The Reef has demonstrated its capacity to recover from previous coral bleaching events … And the AIMS report states that bleaching in 2021-22 did not result in widespread mortality. People must remember that bleaching doesn't automatically mean death. It's great to see this news, because the Great Barrier Reef is one of the best-managed reefs in the world. I listened carefully to the last contribution. There was never any acknowledgement of the work done in the last term of government. There is the contribution, too—and this is something that Labor people will never talk about because they have overseen this in Queensland for the last 30 of 35 years—of the impact on the Great Barrier Reef of sewage in water streams. It is always farmers who are damaging the Great Barrier Reef. They pour all of their attention and effort into that, but they won't look at funding and supporting councils to improve their sewerage systems and do some practical measures. What is happening on the Great Barrier Reef is not the hysterical crisis that the Greens would have you believe. I was just thinking back over my lifetime. We had 'the end of the world is nigh' due to pollution in the 1970s. Guess what? Human ingenuity and technology cleaned up the air. We had the hole in the ozone layer. That was going to kill us. Guess what? That's closed over. We've had global cooling, the ice ages and global warming. Everything is unprecedented and people are exhausted. They're exhausted from the hysteria and they're desperate to have balanced media coverage that provides an opportunity for humans to stay positive. I am positive. I am positive that, over thousands of years, humans have innovated. Humans have improved on their condition. Humans are always able to come up with a solution, and I feel confident that we will continue to do that. That's what I tell my children, because I am positive about the future. I'm also positive about a future that has fossil fuels. It's shocking, isn't it? But I feel we have a moral imperative to continue to provide electricity, not just in this country but around the world. Senator Steele-John 250156 Is this serious? Senator McDONALD 123072 I listened in respectful silence to others. It is no surprise— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator McDonald, please sit down. Can I just remind, yet again, those down in the back corner, the Greens, that others in this chamber listened in silence to your contribution, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I didn't say anything. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x And if you intend to make a contribution, Senator Steele-John, I'm sure you would expect the same respect in return. Senator McDonald, you have the call. Senator McDONALD 123072 We have a responsibility to provide electricity, not just here but around the world, and particularly in those nations where they're currently forced to turn to burning fuel or burning dung—using the most expensive and polluting methods that they can get their hands on in order to have the basics. A specialist in Queensland told me a story that reminded me of this just the other day. He and his family emigrated from Kolkata. They took his younger brother to the hospital one evening, and at the hospital, which was experiencing intermittent power, they weren't able to do a scan of this child. They weren't able to examine him, and they sent him home with the family, where he died. He died of appendicitis—a burst appendix. This is shocking. So, when he came to Australia and studied and became a specialist, that is a reminder that electricity—reliable, affordable electricity—saves lives. And we will only be able to do that with the continuation of coal-fired power and gas plants for the foreseeable future, because whilst there is this belief that we will be able to transition to renewable energy, whilst the Labor government has just agreed that China will be able to dump wind turbines on our shores, we do not have the technical capacity, and everybody agrees with that. There is nobody who will tell you that there is battery storage that will provide more than 20 minutes at the best. There is nobody who will genuinely tell you that hydrogen, renewable energy or batteries are in any way able to provide reliable and affordable electricity to Australia or anywhere else in the world in the foreseeable future, and so I do believe we have a moral imperative to continue providing affordable, reliable electricity. And let's not forget that in Australia it is the big three that pay for us to have the first-world lifestyle that we have—the big three gorillas of iron ore, gas and coal, and the only difference is the order in which they appear. It is their royalties, their company taxes, the PAYG taxes from the people they employ, and their community contributions that pay for all of the services that we enjoy. The very idea that we would be driving off investment in those industries is economic vandalism. It would be disastrous for this country—40 per cent of all company tax that pays for all of the services and the amenities that we all enjoy, and 1.1 million Australian jobs, jobs that will not readily transfer to polishing solar panels. Only gas will prevent us having blackouts as early as next winter. That's shocking, isn't it? Next winter we are projected to have blackouts, and that is from the AEMO report that came out yesterday. We will have shortfalls from 2026. That is not 10 years away; that is a heartbeat away. Labor has been in government for two years and our gas shortfall is coming ever closer—nothing except fund the EDO to attack resource projects. Senator Farrell I0N Yes, because you didn't do anything about it for 10 years. Senator McDONALD 123072 I'll take that interjection from Senator O'Farrell because he is so wrong— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Farrell, on a point of order? Senator Farrell I0N At least the senator could call me by my correct name. My correct name is Farrell, not O'Farrell. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you, Senator Farrell. Senator McDonald, you have the call. You may continue. Senator McDONALD 123072 I apologise that you misheard me. I do very clearly know that your name is Senator Farrell. Minister Farrell, the reason you are wrong is because every well must be maintained, and the lack of investment and lack of flow in the Bass Strait—one of our great reserves—means we are now down 50 per cent on production in those places since you came to government, and there are no new projects coming to market. We have great projects like Senex—not approved under your government. We have great domestic projects like Tamboran and in the Beetaloo—not approved under your government. We have offshore projects that have been delayed because they have not been approved under your government. This has got nothing to do with anybody else but your government and your failure to act to bring more gas to the market. It will result in fewer Australian jobs, and we are seeing that right now—Sealy International, 125 jobs; Sorbent, 70 jobs now going offshore to Indonesia. We can give thanks that those companies were able to survive COVID but they won't survive under a Labor government. That is shocking. There is risk of more jobs going if Labor is not prepared to fix the gas market. It is ludicrous that the Greens are talking about cutting more gas because this isn't about an ideology; this is about people. This is about Australians—mums and dads—sitting around the table, deciding how they are going to earn a crust, put food on the table and live their lives. Because coal and gas aren't just energy; they are manufacturing. Industry, steel, glass, bricks, everything, can only be generated from the energy that these things are bring. I welcome the opportunity to have these discussions. Because the hysterical urgency coming from Minister Bowen, these damning policies will mean Australians would have fewer jobs, less manufacturing, higher costs of living, lower quality of life. These are coming like a train. We have been warning for two years about what is happening in the gas market and now those warnings are coming to fruition. I'm shocked that, as a responsible government, they are not heeding the advice of Treasury, of other officials, of independent agencies like AEMO. This is not me saying it; this is your very own agencies ringing the bell—warning, warning, warning, we are going onto the rocks! The hysterical comments from the Greens will impact Australians in a worse outcome than you can imagine. We used to have a balanced debate in this place but now the hysterical activism, the lack of widespread newspapers and news shows means that Australians are having to resort to getting their media from social media, from the clips that the Greens will be taking from their motion today. That is what they are doing. This is a fundraising activity, this motion. It is not about addressing the rushed policies that are facing Australia and the very real danger and damage that these policies are doing to us all. I'm not sure what else we can do apart from warn, tell Australians. In the case of the Queensland election, another Queensland senator was trying to appeal to Queenslanders to think about their vote. I do the same because it is only with us continuing to do the great job that we do in mining, in gas production—we have a responsibility to the world to produce the lowest emission, highest calorific coal and clean gas that we do to assist our allies and our neighbours with not burning dirtier fuel. That's what increases world emissions. If that's what your biggest worry is then you should be encouraging Australian mining—mining that pays royalties and taxes, employs millions of Australians and ensures that we have a great quality of life. I don't support this motion. It will be no surprise by this point. It is a pointless waste of effort apart from the fact that we get to talk about it. The Great Barrier Reef is not dead and dying, as the Greens would have you believe. New coal, oil and gas mines are actually useful and a moral imperative for this country for the rest of the world. I don't support this motion, I can't support this motion and I know that Australians across this country are begging the Greens to stop their hysterical arguments, calm down and assist them with living the best lives that they can. 16:26 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Once again those who worship the sky god of global boiling are using their religion to scare the public into holding the line on the great climate boiling scam. Is it still global boiling or have we now moved to global scalding? This fearmongering, this scaring, as I've been explaining for many years, involves taking money from hardworking Australians and giving it to parasitic billionaires to fix the climate. Senator Whish-Wilson's latest motion reheats an old, debunked scare: the Great Barrier Reef is dying. In 2016 the Washington Post ran an article titled '"And then we wept": Scientists say 93 percent of the Great Barrier Reef now bleached'. In 2022 the Washington Post ran an article titled, in part, 'Great Barrier Reef has the most coral in decades'. In 2024 they ran an article titled 'Fatal heatwave strikes unspoiled swath of Great Barrier Reef'. It went on to say: Water temperature data suggests the toll of this event could approach that of 2016, when some 30% of the reef's corals died after suffering through what were then unprecedented levels of heat stress. Can't they see it's cyclical? Hang on. Wasn't that 93 per cent? No. That's just the mainstream media scare figure used at the time to appease their owners, the same predatory billionaires that profit from the global boiling scam. It was never an accurate figure, never credible, yet the Greens repeatedly peddled it. In summary, the reef had a serious bleaching event in 2016, and within a few years the coral extent was back to normal. By the way, the first scientifically recorded bleaching was in 1926. Scientific records show that bleaching has been a natural part of the Great Barrier Reef cycles and other reef cycles for millennia. That is fact. This is not some esoteric discussion. These Chicken Little claims from the Greens have consequences. Scare stories about the reef dying cause tourists, including international tourists, to cancel their holidays on the Great Barrier Reef, destroying livelihoods in Great Barrier Reef communities on the Queensland east coast. People instead go to a country where the politicians are not scaring off the tourists. Jobs are lost every time the Greens use the Great Barrier Reef as a political football. There's not even any science behind their claims. At times the reef can be a naturally fragile ecosystem. We know that. Certain naturally occurring events can impact it. The greatest danger for the barrier reef is flooding. Tropical cyclones dump fresh water into a river catchment system that carries rainwater hundreds of kilometres onto the Great Barrier Reef. Freshwater plumes kill saltwater coral polyps, and the event is declared a bleaching event—all natural, all cyclical, quite common. What did we have three months ago in Queensland? A severe flood event—entirely natural. What do we have now? Coral bleaching—entirely natural. Don't take my word for it. Please read James Cook University's article titled 'Back-to-back cyclones and flood plume impacts on the Great Barrier Reef', which confirmed freshwater coral bleaching was recorded along the reef. Now the climate boiling scammers are trying to blame this on natural climate variability, so let me give you the inconvenient truth about that. I want you to reference the study titled 'Great Barrier Reef study shows how reef copes with rapid sea level-rise' from the University of Sydney website. I'll publish the link. To quote from the study: Using unprecedented analysis of 12 new drilled reef cores with data going back more than 8,000 years, the study shows that there have been three distinct phases of reef growth since the end of the Pleistocene era about 11,000 years ago. It goes on to say: 'We wanted to understand past reef resilience to multiple environmental stresses during the formation of the modern reef,' said the lead author Kelsey Sanborn, a PhD student at the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney. It continues: The study was an international collaboration published in Sedimentary Geology, which revealed a period around 8,000 and 7,000 years ago when the reef growth slowed as it was exposed to multiple stressors, including likely increases in sediment and nutrient flux on the reef. I wonder what could cause the sediment and nutrient flux that damaged the reef 8,000 years ago. Well, it can't be coal fired power stations, it can't be internal combustion engines or people living in freestanding homes on quarter-acre blocks, and it certainly couldn't have been air travel. What could it be? Of course! I have it: eating meat! That's it! If the local Aboriginal population had just stopped eating red meat and instead grew soybeans, those tropical storms would not have dumped nutrient-rich floodwaters onto the reef. Study co-author Associate Professor Jody Webster said: We need to understand the past in order to predict the future. This paper and Kelsey's broader research examine how sea level, surface temperature, sediment in the water, nutrient influx and energy inputs into the reef system affect its vulnerability to environmental change. It goes on: The reef system survives because of a delicate balance these environmental factors. All natural. Whenever the balance of the reef is disturbed, a bleaching event occurs. It's entirely natural. It's in a symbiotic relationship with other organisms. There's no doubt that when an unusually hot day corresponds to an unusually low tide, the reef will bleach, and it will bleach from a cyclone event and many other disturbances. That reminds me, I went scuba diving with some media off Keppel Island. We said, 'See the corals recovering from a cyclone.' The journalist said, 'But you haven't seen the real bleaching a thousand kilometres north.' There was a thousand kilometres of reef between where we were, with the healthy reef, and their claimed bleaching event. They just ignore the healthy reef. For the Greens to use mother nature to promote their climate change scam is wrong—it's utterly wrong. For reef researchers to pretend reef damage is due to climate boiling and then ask for more money to research climate change is wrong. It's dishonest and it's scientific fraud. The truth is that the ocean is warmed primarily from the sun, with a secondary contribution from geothermal activity—fact. The atmosphere—the thing being blamed for heating up and bleaching the reef—only warms the top millimetre or so of the ocean surface. That's not enough to cause any harm—and, by the way, we can see that in the seasonal impact. The climate boiling scammers can blame their sky god of warming all they like. They can demand large homes, big cars, aeroplanes, cattle, sheep, clothing, cheap power and so much more be sacrificed on the altar of their climate boiling beliefs. Saying a lie does not make the claimed science real. Repeating a lie doesn't make the claimed science real. Our weather patterns are normal—entirely natural—and so are the patterns on the reef. If the Greens want to be useful, they should campaign against wind turbines—the installation of which requires whole tops of mountains being blown off mountains across northern Queensland right now, disturbing sediment and arsenic that flow through underground aquifers and winds up on the Great Barrier Reef, making these natural flood events even worse. One Nation care about the natural environment because we value the natural environment. That's just one of the many reasons why we oppose wind turbines in pristine bushland and, for that matter, near human beings. We oppose industrial solar on farmland and on bushland. We oppose national parks being carved up for power lines, especially the Snowy 2.0 abomination. And we oppose land clearing of old-growth forests for any purpose, including grazing. One Nation is now the party of true environmentalism. And the Greens? Well, they're the party of promoting the political agendas and the pockets of parasitic billionaires over the best interests of the natural environment. The Greens peddle the United Nations World Economic Forum's antihuman agenda, which is in turn based on a lie—a false assumption. That lie, that false assumption, is that human civilisation and the environment are mutually exclusive. That is the opposite of reality. The reality is that, for human civilisation to have a future, we must have a healthy natural environment. History over the last 170 years shows that the health of the environment depends on human civilisation because industrial civilisation minimises human impact on the natural environment. What has human civilisation produced that is so beneficial for the environment? High-energy, low-cost, ultrareliable hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. Before these hydrocarbon fuels, humans needed whale oil for lighting, killing whales. Before these hydrocarbon fuels, heating and cooking needed timber from chopped down trees. The area of land in the developed continents covered by forest over the last 100 years has increased by 30 per cent because we're no longer chopping down trees for cooking and heating. The best friend of whales and the best friend of forests is hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. As a servant to the fine people of Queensland and Australia, I cherish human progress. I cherish human flourishing. I cherish hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. I admire human progress and human initiative. I appreciate human progress. 16:37 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia This great ancient continent that we share contains upon its shores, among its lands and in its oceans some of the great natural wonders of our planet. We have heard during the life of this parliament—and I'm sure we'll hear about it again in the course of this debate—about the stewardship and the care for country of First Nations people, who have brought and guided the land through the longest continuing human culture on this planet. For tens of thousands of years, the unique biodiverse regions of this ancient continent were kept in balance and nurtured life. Our oceans and rivers teemed with life. In the last 200 years or so of European occupation and exploitation of this ancient continent so many of these wonders have been brought to the brink. Senator Whish-Wilson brought to the chamber tonight an opportunity to discuss a reality and a fact. The fact is that the burning of fossil fuels—of coal, oil and gas—in Australia and across the world brings us to a moment right now when the best scientists in the world are telling us that the year we have just lived through, 2023, was the hottest on record by far. The great reefs of this continent, the crown jewels of our oceans, are dying. They're bleaching. They're being swept away. In the last eight years alone, the Great Barrier Reef has bleached no fewer than six times, and the link between these catastrophic events and the burning of coal, oil and gas is indisputable. Yet, from Queensland right across to the coastline of Western Australia, we have Labor governments at a state level, a Labor government now in the national offices of this parliament, a Labor prime minister and a Labor environment minister not only failing to protect these precious wonders but failing to work with those First Nations peoples, who for countless generations stewarded and supported and sung that country. In fact, these administrations are actively enabling the destruction of these reefs and actively enabling these natural wonders to be swept away, robbing future generations of the opportunity to swim in them, to walk on them and to sit within them and reflect upon what it means to be human and share a moment on this planet together. Right now in Western Australia, along our glorious Kimberley coastline, we have a Labor government at the state level working to promote the business interests of a massive gas corporation, Woodside Energy, which thinks it runs our state and our politics. Why does it think this? Because it does. Donations given by Woodside Energy buy the support of the Liberal and Labor parties of Western Australia for whatever Woodside wants. Whatever Woodside Energy wants, it gets in Western Australia, and it gets it because it donates. It is state capture, pure and simple, and it's sick. In Queensland we have a state government which seems to want praise from the rest of the nation for doing what anyone would reasonably consider was a bit below the bare minimum. It pretends to be saving the Great Barrier Reef while continuing to approve the very coal, oil and gas projects that are destroying it. Well, the people have had enough. Despite what the Woodsides of this nation believe and despite what the premiers, prime ministers and environment ministers which some companies buy may believe, these precious places are not the playthings of corporations. They are not assets to be stripped, mined and sold. They are ours, collectively, and held in trust. When threatened by politicians and corporations, the people together will defend them in the name of their inherent right to exist and the right of the future generations to glory in them. In Western Australia we have a proud history of protecting our glorious coastline, particularly from Woodside. In 2013 we came together to defeat the James Price Point proposal, and, once again, we are coming together to defeat the monstrous Burrup Hub proposal. If it requires people to go to jail, to put their bodies and lives on the line to block this project, they will and they are, and I pay tribute to them tonight. If it requires people from Fremantle and people from Perth and people from Esperance and people from Bunbury and people from Broome and Carnarvon to come together to defeat these projects, they will and they are. Over in Western Australia there is right now a coalition building, the Save Scott Reef coalition. Backed by our environment groups, backed by our environmental defenders, people are coming together to defend our magnificent coastline, particularly from the elements of the Burrup Hub proposal, the Browse and the other elements of the Woodside proposal which would see Scott Reef put at risk of catastrophic oil pollution. That would see the pygmy blue whales that call Scott Reef home put at risk, and the green sea turtles—the wonders of which are listed by federal environment law as being vulnerable and at risk. The national environment minister has within their power the ability to deny approval for the expansion of the North West Shelf and the expansion of the Browse offshore gas field project and they must use those powers to stop this project. We cannot continue to approve gas and coal projects in this nation which we know will push our environment to the brink—which would push us over the edge into two degrees of warming. We cannot do it. The community look to political spaces to take that action, and, if those spaces are captured by corporate interests, we will take that action regardless. We are not going to sit by while corporations destroy these natural wonders and push our planet to the brink. If discussion of these topics makes people in this chamber feel uncomfortable, well, I have a plain and simple message: get used to it, because the Greens are not going to stop. The community is not going to stop. We will not relent in our defence of the natural world, the precious places, the cultural heritage of First Nations people. We will not relent in pushing back against the corporations that seek to buy our democracies nationally and at the state level, and we will not relent in calling out the hypocrisy and the dishonesty at the heart of a party, the Australian Labor Party, that would put itself forward as a defender of the environment while simultaneously approving projects which destroy the environment. 16:49 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland The one thing that surprises me about this motion, as someone who lives near the Great Barrier Reef—just a few kilometres away from the catchment area—is there's been no real mention of what's been happening on the reef in the last few years. Just under two years ago, back in August 2022, even the ABC could bring themselves to admit, somewhat reluctantly, that, in the headline of a news story, 'Great Barrier Reef coral cover at record levels after mass-bleaching events'. This news article was referring to a study, released in mid-2022 by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which showed that coral on the Great Barrier Reef had gone to a level not seen in records at any time before. The records only go back to the mid-1980s, although that's now getting on for 40 years—we didn't really measure it much before then—but going all the way back, coral had recovered to its record levels. I note that when Senator Whish-Wilson was bringing his evidence forward to support his motion, he really only went back to the 1980s in terms of coral-bleaching events and what's happened since then. They are a natural part of any coral reef. It does get different temperatures at different times and, yes, a bleaching event does kill a lot of coral. But, as clearly shown in the last few years, coral then grows back, often stronger and healthier and better—in the same sort of way that pastures do. Indeed, good pasture management will normally mean the intentional destruction of the pastures through fire management techniques that go back to our Aboriginal ancestors, that then help ensure the grass is even healthier and thicker and better and more resilient going forward. It's not that much different to coral, although of course we don't manage it in an intentional way; it's a natural process that always occurs. So, the evidence is in. The science is in. There is record coral cover on the reef, and yet that's not mentioned by the other side. It's a clear problem for their argument. Their argument is that the world's been warming—and I accept that; the global temperature has been warming, that's clear—and that will lead to catastrophic results for reefs around the world. But then you've got this contrasting data point that, despite that warming, our coral cover has been at record levels. How do you explain that? There has been no coherent attempt from those on the other side that want to support this motion to explain the inconsistency in their own argument and the real-world evidence that is clearly out there that even the ABC admits to now. It looks like another bleaching event is emerging now, but, again, this is part of a natural process that occurs. It's a bit strange. Senator Whish-Wilson's motion mentions that if we get to two degrees Celsius then 99 per cent of the world's coral reefs will die. I've had a look at these studies. It just doesn't seem to compute. Can someone explain to me here in this debate how we could have a situation where the world's warmed something like 1.1 or 1.2 degrees Celsius since the preindustrial times baseline that's used—we're getting close to the 1.5 figure and, yes, the Greens are worrying we'll get to two degrees Celsius—so it's warmed more than half to get to the two degrees threat level, and yet we have coral reefs set at record levels. And apparently, for the other half of it, we'll tip over a point but 99 per cent will die. That doesn't seem right. And when something doesn't seem quite right, it's right to question that. It's right to question whether this is being used to pursue some other agenda and is not, in fact, a genuine attempt to protect the environment. People where I live and the people of Central and North Queensland are sick and tired of being used as a political football. It's our livelihoods. It's our communities that people are constantly using to kick around for their own political purposes, having almost zero knowledge of how the system works, where things even are and what the impact is going to be. I was listening to the speaker before me, my colleague Senator Steele-John, and he's now complaining that the Woodside gas project will apparently kill the Great Barrier Reef. The Woodside gas project is on the other side of the country from the Great Barrier Reef, but it will now apparently kill the reef. It reminded me—not that they'll mention this debate—that a few years ago the Greens senators and Greens activists were saying exactly the same thing about the Adani Carmichael mine. That project just touches the Great Barrier Reef catchment area. It's right on the edge of it. It's 400 kilometres away from the coast, but some of the water from the Carmichael mine would, in theory, make its way across 400 kilometres into the ocean. We were all told back then that this mine was going to kill the reef. It was going to be the end of it. It was all over. Lots of the Greens propaganda almost suggested that the mine was kind of in the reef and it was almost going to be digging up coral. In fact, some did, because there was a related ports development to the project at one stage, so they almost suggested that coral was going to be dug up by this port development. That was never the case. Anyway, the mine has now started. The mine has been going now for more than two years, and you would have thought, given the Greens' previous claims about the Adani mine, that two years on they would bring evidence to this chamber about how this 10 million tonnes per annum mine at Carmichael has damaged the reef. Where's the evidence? Now you're saying the Woodside project is going to damage the reef. It's not even close to the reef, but your argument is that it creates carbon emissions that then cause the world to warm and damage the reef. Well, you were saying exactly the same thing about the Adani Carmichael mine. It's now up and running. Where is your evidence that this mine has caused damage to the Great Barrier Reef? It's totally absurd that this project alone would cause that kind of damage, but it is used to try and stop the jobs and economic opportunities that have been generated by that mine. That mine now employs 2,000 northern Queenslanders in good, permanent, secure, local jobs. They've only got people from Townsville and Rockhampton working on that mine. There's a mining services contract in Mackay. It's of enormous benefit to our regions, having that mine there. But now it's forgotten, because its use for the Greens has expired so they've forgotten about the people of North and Central Queensland. They've moved on to the next project that they're trying to stop—I hope unsuccessfully, as well. I think it's important to pick up one part of the motion that is very misleading, which is the point about the Great Barrier Reef itself generating 64,000 jobs for our country. I'm a huge supporter of our tourism industry. It does great things for our country and it's a small business dominated industry. They, too, are sick and tired of the Greens using the Great Barrier Reef as a political football, because one thing that keeps people from coming to the Great Barrier Reef is the perception around the world that it's somehow dead, buried and gone, with nothing to see anymore, despite it having record coral cover and being beautiful—and you should come and see it. Constantly, local businesses complain about the rhetoric from the Greens and how it damages their industry, but the Greens don't seem to care. Regarding that figure of 64,000 jobs, which gets used a lot by the Greens, it's quite important to look at where it comes from. They're trying to use that as a figure to say, 'Tourism is 64,000 jobs and coalmining in Queensland is about 50,000. Therefore, we can lose the coalmining industry and it won't matter'—even though 50,000 jobs is still a lot. Let's look at where that figure comes from. It comes from a Deloitte report that was commissioned nearly 10 years ago. If you dig into the details of that Deloitte report and how they estimate those jobs—in fairness to Deloitte, it's actually very hard to estimate the economic contribution of the tourism industry because it's not really separately reported in our data and it's tied up with hotels and restaurants and other venues that are not only used by tourists—they used travel data regarding people travelling to anywhere in the Great Barrier Reef catchment area. If you travel to Proserpine you're counted as potentially contributing to the Great Barrier Reef economy. Yes, a lot of people travelling to Proserpine would be doing that. It's a gateway to the Whitsundays and to Airlie Beach. You've got a good chance of going to the reef if you're flying to Proserpine. However, if you fly to Moranbah, for example—which is smack bang in the middle of the country's biggest coal basin—you're also counted as a tourist going to see the Great Barrier Reef, even though Moranbah is nearly 300 kilometres from the Great Barrier Reef. I'm not sure if Senator Whish-Wilson has gone to Moranbah Airport, but you're probably not going to find too many people dressed in scuba gear there. There'll be a lot of people in very brightly coloured uniforms, in hi-vis, through Moranbah Airport. It's not exactly salubrious. There's not really an airport lounge at Moranbah Airport. You're out in the open on steel benches, often in the heat, waiting to get your flight back home. That's Moranbah Airport. It's a working town. It's a massive economic contributor to this community. But Deloitte—good luck to them; I don't know where these economists or other people were based, and I don't know if they ever went to Moranbah—counted a proportion or what I think was a quarter of the travel to Moranbah as contributing to the tourism economy of the Great Barrier Reef. It's the most absurd thing you've ever heard. They even counted half the travellers to Mackay and Townsville as contributing to the Great Barrier Reef. Anybody who knows knows that's just absolutely absurd. There'll be some people who fly to Mackay and Townsville that are going to see the reef. But guess what? There are other people that just fly to see their family in Mackay and Townsville. There are other people that just fly in to work, to do business or to go to and from the hospital in Brisbane, which they have to do because the hospital health services are woeful in these regions. That's what we'd like to see; we'd like to see that fixed. Do that for us in north and Central Queensland instead of just using us as a political football. But that was just absurd, that report, and it should never be used as a basis for any kind of argument, especially an argument to try and say that we should shut down one industry, in coal or gas, to try and help another one, in tourism. That's not how you grow business. We don't have to shut down some industries to help others. In fact there's a great symbiotic relationship between the mining industry and the tourism industry in north and Central Queensland because the mining industry does bring people to north and Central Queensland. It brings people there to work and to live, and, unfortunately now, a lot of the tourism that occurs in the Great Barrier Reef is local. It's becoming increasingly local because we're pricing ourselves out of the international market. It's a very expensive destination, to come to the Great Barrier Reef now, with our regulation and red tape and a lack of investment, partly, because of that. We are really struggling to compete against the likes of Thailand and other areas with coral reefs where scuba diving is a lot cheaper. But the one marker that we do have that will come to the reef is those locals, because it's easy to get to, you don't have to fly and people can just own a boat and get out there. That's a big part of the tourism market now. The more people we can bring to north and Central Queensland either through a mining job, agricultural developments or whatever it might be, the more that will help the tourism industry because there are more people living there that will just go to the beach for their weekends rather than on a long international holiday. For the final point I want to make on all of this, as I say, I accept the world has been warming, but the question is: what do we do about it? What exactly do the Greens seem to think will happen if we shut down our coal and gas industry? That's what they're saying in this motion. They want us to walk away from our own production of coal and gas, and their implicit assumption in that is it will save the Great Barrier Reef; everything will be right and fine with the Great Barrier Reef. Nowhere do they mention in this motion or otherwise what the Australian contribution to the world's coal and gas production is. It is insinuated and implied, as I think a lot of Australians think, that Australia is this very large coal producer and we dominate world coal markets or gas markets. Nothing could be further from the truth. We produce around five per cent of the world's coal. That's it. China produces about half of the world's coal. We're five per cent. For gas, it's even a little bit less. For gas, we're just four per cent of the world's gas production. You could shut down all of our coalmines and gas facilities, stop the LNG projects in Western Australia and basically kill our manufacturing industry if you do that as well, and we wouldn't make a single difference. The effect on the reef will be no different at all. That production will almost certainly be displaced to other countries. The Greens and others will still want to consume the goods that are made from coal and gas products, including scuba gear. That's made from petrochemicals. Most scuba gear would be made from petroleum products. So what's the point of it? Your flippers, your wetsuits will all be made overseas then, from somewhere else, using gas from somewhere else. It won't protect the reef at all. So I think, if we're serious about protecting the reef, we have to start from the position of getting our facts right. The fundamental reason why I oppose this motion is that the Greens simply have not got their facts right. They haven't got their facts right on the economic contribution of tourism in north and Central Queensland, they haven't got the facts right on the state of the Great Barrier Reef at the moment and they don't have the facts right on Australia's contribution to this issue and therefore what we should do about it. But, most of all, I think what's important is we actually get some more voices in this debate of people who are interested in the Great Barrier Reef and want to protect it. Please try to listen to the people who live and work there. They do care about it. We do love it. It's a fantastic place to be. We'd love for you to come up and visit us or maybe move up to us. We're very open-minded and hospitable people. We have actually had a lot of Victorians move up in the last couple of years. Every second person I meet in Yeppoon these days is from Melbourne, and it's great. It's great to have those Victorians come and share the wonder of our region, the Great Barrier Reef, with us. But we do get a little bit frustrated by people wanting to make broad conclusions and make political decisions that impact people's real lives without having any real local knowledge of the issue themselves. 17:04 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I too rise to speak against this motion. For too long, there has been way too much fearmongering about the Great Barrier Reef, especially in regard to bleaching, which I'll touch on in a minute. But I want to refer to the Great Barrier Reef inquiry. It was the first inquiry I ever participated in, and my first question in that inquiry was to the head of AIMS, the Australian Institute of Marine Science. The question I asked was a very simple one. I said, 'Do you have a centralised database of all the health KPIs relating to the Great Barrier Reef since the early 1980s'—because that's when scientists started looking at the reef in detail—'that demonstrates that the health of the reef is dying?' It took about five or six minutes of the usual bureaucratic obfuscation. All I wanted was a 'yes' or 'no'. Eventually, we got out of the head of the Australian Institute of Marine Science a 'no'. Here's the thing: the fact of the matter is that there's a lot of alarmism going on with the reef. There's a lot of money being wasted on scientific research that isn't being properly collated by the reef. There is no data at all that demonstrates that the health of the reef has been dying over the last four decades, dating back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. Coral cover is being measured. It's only measured about every five years, and the latest update on coral cover, last year, showed that the coral cover on the reef was at record highs. That's got nothing to do with climate change or anything like that, because one of the most toxic impacts on coral is actually fresh water, believe it or not. Anyone who's got an aquarium at home knows you have either a saltwater tank or a freshwater tank. If it's a saltwater tank, you've got to keep it just right or the fish will die, as well as the coral. So the reason why the Great Barrier Reef is at record cover is that there have been very few cyclones—touch wood—up in North Queensland over the last decade. We've had a relatively stable last decade. In the period just before that we had Cyclone Yasi and another big cyclone that really wiped out the reef, Cyclone Larry. What you get with those big cyclones are two things: you obviously get the cyclone itself, which rips up the reef, and then you get enormous dumps of fresh water. They go down those massive North Queensland rivers that we love so much, and that fresh water flows out onto the reef and then kills the coral even more. So that's got nothing to do with climate change or anything like that; that is just how the world works. It demonstrates the lack of evidence and systemic record keeping that is so typical of government bureaucracy. It's all fearmongering and very little facts and figures. Later that afternoon, we had the Queensland natural resource department come in, and I asked them another question. I asked them, 'What is your margin of error in regard to your measuring equipment when you actually measure concentrations of'—I forget what it was—'nitrogen and other potential contaminants on the reef?' Their margin of error was between 60 and 90 per cent. Not only that—they measured this water below where the farmland was, but they didn't have another gauge above the farmland up in the high areas up on the Great Dividing Range, where you get a lot of dissolved nitrogen leaching out of the soil and all the leaf structure that's on our Great Dividing Range. Of course, I'm thinking here of Eungella and Chalumbin and all of these beautiful areas up on our Great Dividing Range that are soon to get levelled in the name of climate change. We're going to destroy the environment to protect the environment. If anyone wants to make sense of that, good luck with that. I think it's worth pointing out the amount of misinformation that's going on based on no evidence whatsoever, but we really can't have a discussion about the misinformation on the Great Barrier Reef without talking about Professor Terry Hughes. This guy has been seeding such misinformation that it deserves to be called out. I'm glad that Senator Whish-Wilson has given me an opportunity to speak about this, because I'd forgotten to raise it in the chamber. It needs to be put on record that Professor Hughes, Director of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, told a Senate inquiry in 2014 about the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef. He told the inquiry: … coal dust has already spread hundreds of kilometres from coal ports and … it has now accumulated everywhere on the Great Barrier Reef and not just the dredging sites or near the ports themselves. It is exceeding toxic levels in nearshore locations. … … … I think this new evidence is sufficient that recently issued permits to undertake dredging should be revoked. These statements were based upon a study that was proven to be wrong. A very well qualified CSIRO scientist Dr Simon Apte went back and examined the study Professor Terry Hughes relied on and demonstrated that the coal dust concentrations on the Great Barrier Reef were exaggerated by 1,000 per cent. Professor Terry Hughes is considered a so-called expert and yet has been one of the chief alarmists in spreading misinformation about the reef. It has got to stop because, as a result of all of this alarmism, the Queensland government has now mandated that farmers who live in the Great Barrier Reef basin have to implement a Great Barrier Reef plan, in order to prove that their farms aren't allowing sediment to run off onto the Great Barrier Reef. It needs to be said, as I know my good friend Professor Peter Ridd has said many times, that the amount of sediment that comes out of the rivers is nothing compared to the amount of sediment that gets washed up through the oceanic currents. The Great Barrier Reef basin is huge. It runs from Gympie, on the Mary River, down south all the way out to Emerald. Emerald is a long, long way inland. It's a good three-hour drive from Rockhampton. If you're a farmer on the north side of Emerald, the water will run into the Belyando River, which then runs into the Herbert River. For these farmers that are nowhere near the reef, the idea that someone running a few cattle up near Emerald will somehow cause run-off into the reef is just absurd. These guys are expected to go and get a Great Barrier Reef plan that proves that their run-off isn't going to destroy the reef. This plan costs them thousands of dollars, and they're liable to be fined up to $200,000 if they don't meet the requirements of the Great Barrier Reef plan. This is just another example of all the green tape that is put onto our farmers. I can tell you I've spoken with many farmers. I'll mention one in particular, Mr Ramon Jayo, who has recently become Mayor of Hinchinbrook Shire Council. He's a proud cane farmer. He is incredibly proud of his farm. I've had the pleasure of meeting him on a number of inquiries—and I always stop in and see him, and we have lunch when I'm on my wombat trip. He is a top bloke and a great North Queensland character. He's the sort of bloke that, if I hadn't given up drinking when I became a senator, I would get on the turps with him. But I digress. As Ramon has said on many occasions, he does not want any run-off on his property because he wants to keep the soil on his property. He doesn't want erosion. They've got tanks there where they capture the run-off. He says they've got fish living in those ponds they have for their sediment run-off and they're very healthy and vibrant. The thing that concerns him is that some of these mangrove swamps are now so cluttered, because of the World Heritage environmental laws that stop the clearing up of mangroves, that the water can't get away in these floods and it's causing severe flooding in his community. Yet again, all of this misinformation around the reef is having a massive impact on the hardworking farmers up in Queensland, and especially in the Great Barrier Reef basin. I want to go back to the topic of bleaching, which we hear about all the time. Yet again, the theme is recordkeeping. I'll say it again—and I'll say it a hundred times while I'm still a senator—the recordkeeping and the quality assurance of our bureaucracy in Canberra are shocking. It is pathetic. I'll explain the way bleaching is recorded on the Great Barrier Reef. There are trawlers that have nets about five metres wide on each side, and they run up about a 200 metre area—so, all up, an area of about 2,000 square metres. If they detect any bleaching whatsoever in that little run, then the whole area is deemed to be bleached. So, if you've got even one square metre out of the 2,000 square metres that might have a bit of coral bleaching, the entire area is recorded as being bleached. This is clearly overstating the amount of bleaching that occurs, and the scientists know it. The scientists at AIMS or wherever know this, but they won't actually be honest about what's going on, because, if they do that, the funding will dry up. Over $1.2 billion has been given to people whose interest is in claiming that the Great Barrier Reef is dying because they then get more money to, supposedly, save the reef. I've got a friend who is a scientist—not on the Great Barrier Reef—who said something interesting. He said that, if he wanted to study the impact of butterflies in Ecuador, he wouldn't be able to get any money for that. It would be very difficult to get funding if you wanted to study the impact of butterflies in Ecuador. But, as he said, if you wanted to study the impact of climate change on butterflies in Ecuador, you would have no problems getting money. That's because that is how our scientific research is driven these days. It is driven by fearmongering rather than facts, and that has got to stop. In regard to that original Great Barrier Reef inquiry, we spent two days in Brisbane, and then it was my first Friday morning inquiry here in Canberra. None other than Professor Ian Chubb turned up. He said in his opening statement that he wasn't going to have accountants telling scientists what to do. Obviously he was referring to me and my colleague Senator Susan McDonald because we're both accountants. He didn't seem to think that we had any authority as senators, and he was having a go at accountants questioning scientists. Let me tell you something: all science is based on recordkeeping. Empirical science is just that: it is about going out and collecting evidence and proving that the theories about what you may think is occurring are repeatable. I was shocked because I had no idea who Professor Ian Chubb was, and I certainly didn't expect him to lay into me in his opening statement, but it just goes to show the extent to which these people try to intimidate senators and people who want to call out this fearmongering. He got the shock of his life when he found out that I wasn't going to be intimidated by any bureaucrat and that he had an obligation, even though he was a former chief scientist, to actually tell the truth. I'll mention one other research paper that's been debunked over the years. Ten or 15 years ago, there was a study that claimed that a particular species—lionfish—was dying. The sample size of the study was only 45 lionfish. It was subsequently proven that the photos that were taken were duplicates. This scientist had actually gamed her own study. She was a scientist from the Northern Hemisphere who came over here. She got money for research funding and then basically put in a fraudulent claim about lionfish dying on the reef, using duplicate photos to increase the size of the sample to supposedly provide more evidence on what was proven to be a lie. In conclusion, I reject this. I reject the impact it has on our farmers and, as Senator Canavan rightly points out, the impact it has on our tourism industry as we scare away foreigners who don't want to come here and destroy the reef. I say we go back and we tell the truth about our environment for a change. Question negatived. ADJOURNMENT 85 ADJOURNMENT Parliamentary Friends of Caravanning 85 17:20 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I want to speak tonight about the inaugural function that was organised by the Parliamentary Friends of Caravanning yesterday. There were three caravans out the front of Parliament House, in Federation Mall, which demonstrated the innovation of caravanning and manufacturing in this country. I want to acknowledge my co-convener Scott Buchholz, the federal member for Wright. I want to outline to the Senate chamber tonight how critically important caravanning and motorhoming are to our economic benefit in this country. It is not just about touring and having a good time, although all that socialising is very important. There is such a strong economic basis to this sector in this country. It also develops and supports our tourism industry right across this country. It is so important for regional and rural jobs. It creates opportunities for families in regional Australia. We live, no doubt, in the best country in the world. Some of the reasons it is the best country in the world are our wilderness, our national highways, our road networks and the great open space here in Australia. What adventure and this wilderness do is entice Australians and international visitors to go and explore the great mass of Australia. The weekend is synonymous with getting out in that wilderness with your family and friends and going on a fun adventure to see the beauty of our great southern land. This friendship group aims to share how caravans and motorhomes help to build the great Australian road trip adventure. Over countless years, Australia's expansive roads and regional wonders have enlightened and excited Australians to explore our beautiful country. From Lockhart River in Queensland down to Port Arthur in my home state of Tasmania, it is part of who we are as a nation. We are explorers. We are adventurers. We are innovators. While caravanning has brought immense joy to a great many Australian nomads and their families, this is not the only value that this uniquely Australian experience has brought to our country. The caravanning and motorhome industry is also one of the biggest supporters of regional jobs—tourism operators, manufacturing and small businesses—throughout this nation. There are over 6,000 businesses across the entire caravan and camping supply chain. Most of us are not aware of the significant economic impact that the caravan industry makes to our economy, with an impressive annual contribution of $23.8 billion. This sector directly employs in excess of 50,000 Australians. I want to also acknowledge the Caravan Industry Association, the peak body, for what they do in raising awareness about this very important sector. I'd also like to put on record and thank the CEO, Stuart Lamont, and Luke Chippindale for working with us to establish this friendship group and to bring together this wonderful event last night. It was great to have the board of the caravanning association there. I want to particularly acknowledge Andrew Hewitt from OzX Corp, who is an innovator in this industry. He operates out of Victoria. We saw a fully electronic van that runs off solar power entirely. This innovation is helping to prepare for the EV change that is happening in this country and shows how caravanning is an important part of that innovation. I'd also like to give a special shout-out to Dennis Austin, the president of Caravanning Tasmania in my home state. It was fantastic to have all of those people in Parliament House, many of them for the first time, and be able to show them around and give them a good impression of the amount of interest there is not only in this chamber but in the other place in supporting this really important sector. As I said, the value that it brings to rural and regional Australia cannot be overestimated, and I am so proud to be the co-convener with Scott. There will be more from us as we go forward. (Time expired) South Australia: Environmental Conservation 86 17:25 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia I want honourable senators to try to imagine a coastline of breathtaking beauty. I'm fortunate enough to not have to imagine such a place; I know of such a place. It goes by the name of Port Noarlunga. It saddens me to inform the chamber that a section of this beautiful and unique part of South Australia's coastline could have been put at risk if not for a community uprising. A parcel of untouched sand dunes which is owned by the South Australian government is being considered for sale. The land, described by the bureaucrats as lot 108, is zoned for residential housing. It sits alongside a magnificent conservation reserve, which, like lot 108 itself, contains pristine sand dunes that have miraculously survived the aggressive urbanisation that has marked our recent history. The dunes are an oasis of biodiversity, a redoubt pushing back on the relentless attacks from our modern way of living, a way of living that fails to properly value nature in all its magnificence but instead takes the easy path and worships the false gods of consumption. Yet the dunes hold out against all odds. The Port Noarlunga community all rightly want their precious sand dunes to remain untouched. The wider mid coast want their natural inheritance, their beautiful environment, to be valued as a community asset and to be passed on to the next generation. Lot 108 must be protected and kept safe from being ravaged by the developers' bulldozers. How can a price be put on lot 108? It has immeasurable value. It has stood silently as the world around it has been scarred. Why must the priceless be priced? In recent weeks, a community led petition was launched to prevent the sale of this land. The petition has attracted incredible support. There is also an electronic petition, which I hope to table in this place. I'm very pleased to declare to the Senate that the coastal community of the south has secured a great victory. I have this week received strong assurances from the state Minister for Planning that the lot will not be sold for the purposes of development. I thank the minister for listening to the loud and passionate voices of the mid coast. But we must not rest until the land has been rezoned or other necessary legal protections are put in place that make it impossible for this beautiful oasis to ever be touched by development. I ask all those in South Australia who value their natural inheritance to join this fight and maintain their vigilance over all the sacred places that have been handed down to us. Gender Equality 86 17:28 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The Albanese Labor government has a deep and abiding commitment to achieving gender equity, which is why over the past weeks we've announced important initiatives that aim to address the persistent and systemic issues that women continue to face. I'm very proud that, after extensive work by Senator Katy Gallagher, we've released Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality, which is the culmination of extensive consultation with thousands of people across the country, including women's advocacy groups, business, unions and civil society. In many respects, this strategy highlights women's hopes and aspirations. While a lot of progress has been made over the years, the lived experience and expertise of women tells us that barriers persist in both public and private life, including unacceptable rates of gender based violence, harmful stereotypes, pay gaps and underrepresentation. For some, I think it's easy to forget that the status of women, our opportunities to succeed and, indeed, our ability to stand here in this chamber have been fought for over many, many decades by activists, unionists and feminists, and the struggle continues. This is something I'm incredibly passionate about and something this government takes very, very seriously. Our strategy outlines where government will focus its efforts over the next decade to ensure Australia is a place where everyone feels safe and respected and has access to equal opportunity regardless of their gender. As someone who grew up in a situation where boys and girls were intentionally openly treated very differently and where girls had no ambition encouraged in them, it is great to see this piece of work coming out to the public. The Working for Women strategy identifies long-term ambitions that we hope young women and girls can really see as opportunities for them and will take up to be all that they can be without those barriers that we know persist. In all of its decision-making, government will consider how we address gender based violence, unpaid and paid care, economic equality and security, health and leadership, representation, and decision-making. This needs to be done intentionally so that we can ensure that we make progress at the pace we need. This goes well beyond just talking about the issues, and it sets a road map for actually addressing them. The targets are deliverable and measurable, and we'll be working alongside women from all backgrounds every single step of the way to make sure that this is working for them. Future policy and decision-making will be shaped by this strategy, but we have already introduced a range of other things that are going to make a difference for women. One of those key things is our changes to paid parental leave, which will benefit every single Australian who chooses to become a parent. This will particularly make a fundamental difference to women's economic security, because we know that overwhelmingly it is still women who do the bulk of unpaid care work. This significant reform scales up year on year to 26 weeks from July 2026. This is particularly significant for single parents, which, again, is where women are very much overrepresented. As a single mother myself, I know that it will make a fundamental difference. It certainly would have to me. In addition, the Albanese government has also announced that we will pay superannuation on paid parental leave from July 2025. This reform is seriously overdue and finally recognises paid parental leave for what it actually is. It is a workplace entitlement just like sick leave, annual leave and other types of workplace entitlement. As a government, we will continue to work to address gender pay gaps and improve the outcomes for all women across this country. These efforts will be underpinned by this strategy, and I hope it will be supported across the political divide and throughout this chamber and our society, because it is vital for us all to work towards this goal. Gender and Sexual Orientation 87 17:33 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Earlier this month, England's National Health Service became the latest health authority to stop the prescribing of puberty blockers to children. The reason that they did this was simple: they undertook an independent expert review, they looked at the evidence behind what gender clinics had been doing and they found it totally lacking. You would have hoped that there would have been a direct and immediate response in Australia to an expert finding that children have been given drugs with serious side effects without any evidence proving that they are safe or effective. After all, Australia has been more than happy to follow the example set by the UK on gender ideology for years. We imported the talking points falsely claiming that puberty blockers were proven to be safe and effective when in fact that opposite was true. Australian media outlets followed the lead of UK media outlets in attacking and denigrating anybody who spoke out about this. We imported Stonewall's lobbying scheme via ACON, with dozens of government departments paying taxpayer money to be spoonfed gender ideology by lobbyists. We imported abusive and aggressive activists who harass and try to intimidate women who speak up on the dangers of ideology to young girls and to women's sex based rights. Yet now the Australian gender medicine industry and its friends in the local media are insisting that we shouldn't follow the UK's example by commissioning independent experts to look at the evidence. We have lobbyists going around actively demanding that no state government or parliament should inquire into the practices of the gender medicine industry. Let's be very clear about what is happening here. We have a concerted effort by lobbyists in this country to obscure the fact that multiple expert reviews have found that giving children puberty blockers is not backed by evidence. There is a cohort of people in Australia—and you will find many of them in the Labor and Green parties—who would prefer that children continue to be given drugs against the recommendations of expert reviews rather than to admit that the people who pointed out that healthy children should not be given experimental treatments to alter their bodies were right to be concerned. That is the state of so-called progressive politics in Australia. You are the best asset that big pharma companies selling off-label drugs to children have, and you're proud of it. Nobody in this parliament or in any Australian health authority should be surprised at the decision made by England's NHS. The finding of that expert review followed similar evidence based reviews, which have been undertaken in Sweden and Finland, which, perhaps not surprisingly, also found that the evidence for prescribing puberty blockers to children was very low. Warnings about the lack of evidence of giving puberty blockers to children have been around for years. Back in 2021, I spoke in this place and warned that state governments are giving experimental, life-altering medical treatments to children and refusing to produce data demonstrating the extent of these practices or any evidence about the long-term outcomes and side-effects. I pointed out in that speech that, in any other field of medicine, that would cause a major scandal and prompt immediate investigations, but in this case the states feel empowered to operate in secrecy and to actively avoid public scrutiny or any independent oversight. Many parents, doctors and psychiatrists have been raising the alarm for much longer. Despite this, potentially thousands of Australian children have been prescribed these drugs while those concerns were being deliberately ignored. It has continued for years after other countries woke up and started raising the alarm. We have health authorities and government ministers here in Australia continuing to put their heads in the sand. Where is the federal health minister, Mark Butler, on this? Why have we heard nothing from him about why children in England will no longer be prescribed off-label drugs because of the findings of an expert review but children in Australia will be? Because that is exactly what is happening on this minister's watch. It seems that he's ducking for cover, but, Minister Butler, your cover is blown. You know that there is a lack of evidence for these drugs. Groups like WPATH, who declared themselves experts, have been exposed for ignoring dangerous side-effects and acknowledging in private that children can't consent to being given off-label drugs for which there is no evidence base. The Albanese government's choice now is to protect children from a medical experiment or protect the gender medicine industry, which has been carrying it out. Let me be very clear, the world is watching. Senate adjourned at 17:37