2024-03-26 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 26 March 2024

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 1

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

Second Reading 1 12:02 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia As I was saying before adjournment last night, this government is no friend of small business. We saw what they did through their industrial relations changes. We're seeing that they're not following through with their commitment in relation to reducing energy prices, which we know small businesses are hit with in an incredible way. They are unfit to govern this country, and they're demonstrating that time and time again. But, as I said last night, I am pleased in relation to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 that the government are showing that they are listening to small businesses, albeit in a small way. I do welcome it nonetheless. Up until now, the government has shown that it has a deaf ear when it comes to listening to their concerns, and we need to see it step up to the plate and improve in this regard. When I visit small businesses across Western Australia, in Perth and right across the regions—it's a big state, for anyone that hasn't noticed—as you engage with businesses, you see that the last thing they want to see is trade unions getting involved in their businesses, but unfortunately that's what this government is doing. Small businesses have been doing it tough under the Albanese government, and this government is no friend of small businesses. According to Trading Economics, small-business sentiment decreased 9.43 points in the fourth quarter of 2023 from minus 4.09 in the third quarter of 2023. With high energy prices, high inflation and other cost-of-living pressures, it's unsurprising that small businesses are doing it tough on the watch of this Labor government. We're supposed to be living in a country where, if you give opportunities for people to get ahead, to realise their aspirations in that process, they create opportunities for others, such as jobs and investments—opportunity for all. Thus, a good government would not stand in the way of Australians wanting to become small-business owners. I have the privilege of representing Western Australia. I see that Senator Dean Smith is in the chamber with us. We're very proud of our state. We're probably the most parochial people in this parliament, us Western Australians. We will always stand up and fight for our state. It is the most beautiful state. The reality is that 97.1 per cent of businesses in Western Australia are small businesses—that's a huge percentage, isn't it?—and only 0.2 per cent are large businesses. We generate a big chunk of Australia's wealth. It comes out of Western Australia through the mining industry, but we are not just a mining state. It is of course a significant part of our economy, but we are not just a resources states. We've got an engine room within the WA economy and that is our small businesses that are supplying across a whole range of sectors of the economy. It is the unsung heroes in the small business sector that we interact with each and every day, whether it's going to the coffee shop and getting a coffee on the way to work or engaging with a plumber or an electrician to do some maintenance on our homes. Whatever it is, we're engaging with small businesses each and every day. When we talk about these percentages, what this means is that for approximately every 11 Western Australians there is one small business. This is an incredible statistic that is often ignored not only by the Albanese Labor government but indeed also by the WA Cook Labor government. Given the size of the recent budget surpluses that the Cook Labor government have been hoarding, the very least that they could be doing is providing greater cost-of-living assistance. The best way they can direct that is through small businesses. This includes raising the payroll tax threshold for small businesses—a policy that really should be explored by the Cook Labor government, because small businesses are dealing with the cost of living which impacts their employees and indeed their customers. I hate payroll tax. It's an insidious tax. It's an aspiration tax. It's a tax on employment. It's a tax on jobs, and it's a job-killing tax. Considering the payroll tax threshold in 2016 was $800,000, and today it's $1 million, they have done very little to provide tax relief for small businesses in my home state. Frankly the Cook Labor government have dropped the ball on payroll tax. and it's something they should look at. When comparing the threshold with that in New South Wales, which has a payroll tax threshold of $1.2 million, the Cook Labor government has done little. Despite the massive budget surpluses afforded to it by the mining industry and the favourable GST distribution, which was made possible by the previous coalition government, small businesses in Western Australia deserve a fair go, but they're not getting that from wall-to-wall Labor governments. We've got to stand up for small businesses because, as I pointed out, they are the engine room and the lifeblood of our economy, including in my home state of Western Australia. The coalition understands the small business sector. We get the importance of the sector, the value that it has and the valuable role it plays within the Australian economy. Small businesses create jobs, and they're good jobs that you can build a career on. The number of apprentices that small businesses employ means they do the heavy lifting when it comes to providing skills and opportunities to get ahead in your career, and we've got to get behind them. But when it comes to Labor governments—be it here in Canberra at the national level or in my home state with the Cook Labor government—all they do is wrap small businesses up in red tape and compliance issues that actually prevent them from getting ahead. Under the previous coalition government, we delivered significant support for 3.7 million small and medium-sized businesses. This support included reducing the small business company tax rate, extending the instant asset write-off and establishing the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. Importantly, this included providing dispute services in relation to retail lease disputes and recovery of unpaid invoices, just to name a few. The ombudsman, in particular, has been of great assistance for small-business operators. It is an avenue for small businesses to go to for assistance across the board, to get advice to be able to run their business. Businesses just want to get on with the job of running their business and not get caught up in all the issues that government seem to get in the way of. The ombudsman—a great coalition initiative—has enabled small businesses to get the support and advice that they need. We will take a strong competition policy that delivers good consumer outcomes and boosts productivity in our economy to the election. Productivity continues to stagnate under this government's watch, and this government seems bereft of any new ideas on how to supercharge our labour productivity. Its legislative program to date has provided nothing to address productivity. Increasing productivity and curbing inflation will assist struggling Australian families to see real wage growth. There's no point having wage growth that doesn't match the economy and the inflationary impacts. We need wage growth that actually exceeds that. That's what real wage growth is. If you're just getting a salary increase but your grocery, energy and petrol bills—all of the things that you're paying out—are more than what you're getting, then you're going backwards. That's what Australians are experiencing. We have to see productivity growth. It is the only way we can deliver meaningful outcomes for Australians so that they feel the benefit of their labour and hard efforts. As recently as yesterday, 25 March, an article in the Financial Review again highlighted this battle, saying: Wages now make up the lion's share of inflation due to unit labour cost growth the Reserve Bank of Australia described as 'very high' and productivity slumping to 2016 levels. The need to boost productivity is critical in the short term to help the RBA bring inflation back to target. Small businesses need cost-of-living relief too, yet this government is bereft of ideas that will actually get the economy moving and get productivity moving. We need actual skills, not just training for training's sake or training courses in pet projects. We need people to be engaged in training that leads to real jobs that exist so that they can be productive in the workplace. State governments can do a lot more, by providing tax relief and payroll relief. The federal government can do more to incentivise the states to take action. We need competition policy that supports small-business owners and empowers consumers—not lobbyists, unions or big corporations. 12:12 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Greens will be supporting the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024, which creates a new designated complaints function for consumer and small-business groups to raise complaints with the ACCC relating to systemic market issues. But anyone who thinks that the Albanese Labor government is actually taking on the major challenges in our economy, in our society and in regard to the Australian environment is absolutely kidding themselves. One of the major problems that we are facing in our economy is a concentration of market power. That is the case across many sectors of the Australian economy, and it is the case in regard to the Australian economy as a whole. In general terms, Australia's economy lacks competition. What that does is to allow big corporations, many of whom pay absolutely no tax whatsoever in this country, to ruthlessly abuse their market power to profiteer and to price-gouge. Nowhere do we see that more clearly than in Australia's supermarket sector, although there are many other sectors, including the banking sector, where it is undoubtedly the case. Of course, what that means is that the big corporations make off with massive profits which benefit a small number of Australians, whilst a large number of Australians—the consumers of the products that these big corporations offer and the buyers of the products that these big corporations sell—are getting absolutely shafted. Who hasn't got to the checkout in a Coles or Woolworths store in the last year or two and been horrified at the increase in the cost of the basic fundamentals of life? All of us in this place are lucky that we can absorb those costs because we are very well paid, but millions of Australians are having to make really difficult decisions: Do they skip meals to feed their kids? Do they skip meals to pay the power bills? Do they eat two-minute noodles or a packet of corn chips in order to be able to afford a better meal in the future or to pay the school levies for their children? There is not enough competition in the Australian economy, and the big corporations mercilessly exploit that situation by price gouging their customers and raking in billion-dollar-plus profits in many cases. At Senate estimates only a few shorts weeks ago I asked the Reserve Bank governor, Michele Bullock, whether she accepted the proposition that some corporations are using a lack of competition and the cover of high inflation to hike their prices above what would be required to meet increases in their input costs, and Ms Bullock accepted that proposition. In doing so, she joins a growing consensus amongst economists around the world, including the OECD, the IMF, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve in the US, luminaries such as former ACCC chair Allan Fels here in Australia, and the Australia Institute. There is a growing consensus among all those people and groups and many more that corporations are price gouging to boost their own profits in a cost-of-living crisis which is driving up inflation which triggers the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates, which then triggers a whole lot more cost-of-living pain for Australian mortgage holders and renters in particular. Increased mark-ups and price gouging represent millions—and, in some cases, billions—more in profits for the massive corporations, while everyday Australians increasingly struggle to afford to pay for essential goods and services. And just so folks understand what we're talking about here, we're talking—amongst a range of other things—about food. To state the blindingly obvious, if you don't eat, you die, and there are millions of Australians who are either not eating enough or are not eating healthily enough to survive and, in many cases, to lead a dignified life. Nowhere is the issue of lack of competition more stark than in the supermarket sector, where Coles and Woolworths combined have about two-thirds of the market share. That is a global outlier in terms of concentration of market power in the supermarket sector. That's why late last year the Greens initiated a Senate inquiry into supermarket pricing, and the evidence that we've received through this inquiry is clear. The supermarkets are not only ruthlessly using their market power to price-gouge shoppers but they are also ruthlessly using their market power to exploit their workers and to crush primary producers and farmers. We have a crisis on the land in Australia. Family farms are giving way to corporate farming. In many cases, children on family farms simply don't want to take the business on, because it is too hard to make ends meet because they don't have a sustainable business model because they are getting absolutely screwed down by Coles and Woolworths. The supermarket duopoly rakes in billions of dollars in profits while our farmers are going to the wall, while their workers are being exploited and while shoppers can't afford to put three square meals on the table a day. Well, I can assure Australians of one thing, the Greens will always back people over corporations. We know that urgent action is needed, which is why we introduced our divestiture bill, to give courts and competition regulators the toolkit and the power they need to smash up the supermarket duopoly and other price-gouging corporations across the economy where they misuse their market power. Now, the Prime Minister, in an astounding display of hubris and ignorance, has recently dismissed divestiture powers as Soviet-Union-style powers. But divestiture powers are not a controversial idea. The UK has this power; in fact, it was introduced by Margaret Thatcher. The US has this power and has used it regularly since the 1890s. The competition agencies of countries like Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands are right now or have recently required divestment in the supermarket sector using divestiture powers in order to increase local competition. The former head of the ACCC, Professor Allan Fels, has recently stated that Australia should introduce divestiture powers. The current head of the ACCC, Ms Cass-Gottlieb, has agreed that if divestiture powers were introduced in Australia they could increase competition in the supermarket sector, and, under economic analysis, she has agreed with the proposition that this would bring down the cost of food and groceries. Mr Albanese needs to make a choice here and the Labor Party need to make a choice here. Are they going to back in the big supermarket corporations and the big banks, who are ruthlessly price-gouging their customers? Or are they going to back in ordinary Australians who are struggling to put food on the table? Is Mr Albanese going to keep dancing to the tune of the Business Council of Australia, which has come out strongly against divestiture powers? Of course they were going to back in Coles and Woolworths, because they are members of the Business Council of Australia. Or is Mr Albanese going to back in Australian shoppers who are getting price-gouged by Coles and Woolworths? This is a fork-in-the-road moment for the Labor Party and for Mr Albanese. Is he going to back in the big supermarket corporations who are raking in billions of dollars in profits while doing over their workers and screwing down farmers? Or will he back ordinary Australians—people who can't afford a feed, people who are skipping meals, people who work for Coles and Woolworths and the farmers who work so hard on the land to grow the produce that we all eat? This is a fork-in-the-road moment for the Australian Labor Party. And, mark my words, we'll give them the chance to vote for divestiture powers in due course in this Senate. The supermarket duopoly are major donors to the Australian Labor Party. It is amazing and astounding how much money buys you in Australian politics, how many outcomes a relatively small amount of money can purchase you from parties like the Australian Labor Party. Well, it's time that Mr Albanese stopped letting the political donations of Coles and Woolworths drive Labor's policy on competition in Australia. It's time Mr Albanese stopped letting the political donations of Coles and Woolworths drive his opposition to divestiture laws in this country, which would allow for greater competition in the supermarket sector and lower food and grocery prices. It's time for Mr Albanese to take the side of the Australian people over the big corporations. It's time for him to prioritise the ordinary, everyday needs of people who are just scraping by to put food on the table over the billions of dollars in profits that are booked by Coles and Woolworths every year. This bill, which we will support, tinkers around the edges. We need far more significant, far deeper and far broader competition powers in Australia. Of course, we need stronger merger laws in Australia, and I acknowledge that there is a process underway around merger law reform in this country. But let's be very clear about laws around mergers. They may prevent more concentration of market power from developing into the future—and I use the word 'may' because I'm not convinced at all that Labor is going to bring in a robust suite of amendments there, and in fact I predict that they won't and that they will instead tinker around the edges again as they're doing with this bill. But regardless of the scope and the significance of any outcomes from the consideration of merger laws that the government currently has underway, that will not provide a crucial tool in the toolkit to allow for the requirement of more competition in a particular sector, including supermarkets. That is the key problem that Mr Albanese and the Labor Party have. It's time for divestiture powers in this country. They exist in most so-called free market economies around the world. They are a standard part of the toolkit of regulators in places like the UK, the US and many, many other European countries. The problem is that, if you don't have divestiture powers, the big corporations will continue to price gouge and continue to rake in billions of dollars in profits. You know who loses out? It is ordinary folks who can't afford to put food on the table. They are the people that miss out. The corporates make out like bandits, and the ordinary people get done over again. 12:27 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I'd like to extend my thanks to those senators who have contributed to this debate and to the members of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for their consideration of the bill. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 forms part of the government's better competition election commitment, which is designed to increase competition and ensure that the government is responsive to the needs of Australian consumers and small businesses. The bill establishes a new designated complaints function within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Designated complaints will be able to submit a complaint to the ACCC regarding a significant or systematic market issue affecting consumers or small businesses in Australia. The ACCC will be required to assess and respond to the complaint within 90 days, outlining what action, if any, they intend to take. The bill received broad support from consumer groups and other stakeholders as a mechanism to support greater competition and improved outcomes for consumers and small businesses. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has endorsed the bill as a means of empowering consumers and small business advocates and recommends that the bill be passed. Coalition senators recommended the government legislate for a postimplementation review of the scheme after a period of two years. The government is a strong believer in effective evaluation and is willing to back this commitment in legislation. The government-supported amendments provide for an independent review of the scheme as soon as practicable 24 months after the commencement of the bill, with the report to be tabled in parliament at the conclusion of the review. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 5 12:30 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia At the request of the coalition, I move the amendment on sheet 2470, which deals with the matter of a review mechanism: (1) Page 2 (after line 14), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 1 to this Act. (2) The review must commence as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 24 months after the commencement of this Act. (3) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review. (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. In her contribution, Senator Walsh, who is chair of the Senate Economics Committee, made the accurate observation that this particular bill does enjoy widespread support from stakeholders. On the coalition side we don't dispute that. While this is a small amendment, in the sense that it's not particularly complex, we think it's an important amendment to maintain high levels of confidence in the scheme and to ensure that some of the reservations or concerns that were highlighted by some stakeholders during the inquiry process are tested in that review mechanism. I want to read into the Hansard the concerns of three particular stakeholders, who identified that a review mechanism like the one that the coalition is proposing—and we're pleased to hear that the government will be supporting it. The three stakeholders were the Insurance Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the National Insurance Brokers Association. Firstly, the Insurance Council of Australia said: As with the introduction of any regulatory or legislative change, it will be important for the regime to be reviewed to ensure ongoing effectiveness while managing any unintended consequences that may arise. As such, we recommend inclusion of a formal 'post implementation review' mechanism at three years following the commencement of the regime, as well as an ongoing review mechanism. The initial post implementation review timeframe should allow sufficient evidence of the value of the regime, as well as allow for surfacing of any unintended consequences resulting from the regime's introduction. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said: While this reform has been modelled on the existing super complaints pathway in the UK, it would be appropriate to conduct a review 18 months after it comes into effect. The review should consider the process by which a consumer or small business advocacy group can become a designated complainant, the effectiveness of the pathway for raising complaints, any cap placed on the number of designated complaints and complainants, and any other related matters. A review would also be able to identify whether resourcing for the ACCC is appropriate and whether it is being diverted away from dealing with its regulatory priorities, and whether the pathway has given rise to irrelevant, vexatious or frivolous complaints. The National Insurance Brokers Association said: As with all regulatory or legislative changes, it is imperative that the regime be periodically reviewed to ensure it is achieving policy objectives while addressing any unintended consequences that may have arisen. NIBA recommends that the legislation be amended to include a requirement that the designated complaints regime be formally reviewed, with the review to commence no later than three years after the regime commences. This review should also have regard to the allocation of ACCC resources between identified enforcement priorities and the designation complaints regime, ensuring that resources are appropriately allocated to address emerging challenges and priorities. The amendment moved by the opposition with regard to this bill—and I'm pleased to hear, and just to restate, it will be supported by the government—will seek to do four things: to establish an independent review, to ensure the review is undertaken within a period of 24 months after the commencement of the Act, to ensure that a written report of the review is provided within six months of the commencement of the review and to ensure that the parliament has some visibility of that review of the arrangements and that the review be tabled in the parliament within 15 sitting days. With that, I commend the amendment to colleagues. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Third Reading 6 12:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 6

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023

Second Reading 6 12:37 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. There is an extraordinary situation in this country where one in three big corporations pays absolutely no tax whatsoever. By 'big corporations', we are talking about corporations that have revenues of over $100 million. Let's be clear about this: one in three of the corporations that have revenues of over $100 million in this country pay absolutely no tax at all. On the latest figures, that is over 800 corporations. It is actually 816 corporations who have revenues of over $100 million and pay absolutely no tax whatsoever. Let's put that another way. A single, aged-care worker pays more tax than 816 big corporations in Australia, each and every one of which has revenue flows of over $100 million. Let's put it another way. One nurse in Australia pays more tax than 816 corporations, each and every one of which has revenues of over $100 million. I'm not talking about it collectively. I'm talking about one aged-care worker or one nurse paying more tax than any one of the 816 big corporations in this country with revenues of over $100 million, because, of course, the facts are that there are 816 big corporations in Australia, each and every one of which has revenues of over $100 million but pays absolutely no tax whatsoever. The share of the Australian economy going to corporate profits has never been higher than it is today, and the share of the Australian economy going to workers has never been lower than it is today. The corporations are making off like bandits, and Australian workers are paying the price. The corporations are raking in billions of dollars in profits every year while Australian workers are watching their real wages go backwards, as they have been for many years now. This is a massive public policy failure, and it needs to be corrected. This bill, unfortunately, isn't really going to do the job. It is largely focused on one method of tax evasion, which is debt shifting, and unfortunately the government has placed a multitude of loopholes into this bill so that corporate accountants can work around it. Believe me: the corporate accountants will be able to work their way through these loopholes in their sleep. The reason the government has put these loopholes in the bill, the reason Labor has put massive loopholes into a bill that purports to strengthen multinational tax compliance, is that those were their marching orders from the top end of town. It's the same reason Labor won't support divestiture powers in this country—because the top end of town, the big corporations and the BCA have given them their riding instructions. It's the same reason that, after a full consultation process around merger law reform in this country, Labor is going to put forward a pathetically weak proposal. The BCA and the big corporations are the puppeteers, and the Australian Labor Party are the puppets. Before going into the details of the bill, I want to give a massive shout-out here to the one industry that stands head and shoulders above all others when it comes to avoiding tax in Australia. That is, of course, the gas cartel. Oh, my goodness, what a terrific job they do at avoiding tax in this country! I congratulate the gas cartel for their ruthless exploitation of Australian tax laws, for their tax-dodging activities, for the amount of time and effort that they put into avoiding their tax responsibilities and for the amount of time and effort and political donations they put into dictating to the two major parties in this place, the political duopoly, to ensure that tax laws in this country are not written on behalf of the Australian people and are not written on behalf of the many millions of Australians who go to work and work hard every day and pay a significant amount of tax but instead are written to benefit the gas cartel, who are the tax avoiders par excellence in this country. It's absolutely unbelievable. Interestingly, the ATO has done a remarkable job in clawing back billions of dollars through their Tax Avoidance Taskforce, with $6.4 billion in additional revenue this financial year. Remarkably, $4.4 billion or about 70 per cent of what the ATO has clawed back has come from dodgy tax-avoiding gas companies. The ATO has labelled the gas industry in Australia as 'systemic non-payers of tax'. That is not the Greens saying that; that is the ATO saying that. That's why we've circulated an amendment that will improve transparency around which gas export projects are sitting on billions and billions of dollars of PRRT tax avoidance credits. It is astounding, colleagues, and let's never forget it, that, when the Labor Party in government put forward two options to reform the PRRT and went out to consultation, the Labor Party landed on option 3 of two, with option 3 being the one that they were instructed to land on by the gas cartel. That's what we're dealing with here. The cartel reaches its power and influence into this place, and there is no political party—and I say this advisedly—that is more open to being instructed by the gas cartel on how to behave than the Australian Labor Party. We know how many Labor ministers and Labor politicians have rolled out of this place and onto the boards of companies like Woodside and Santos, and I confidently predict that the current resources minister, Ms King, will end up on the boards of Woodside and Santos within 10 or 15 seconds of leaving this parliament. I confidently predict that, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate to me, given the history of the revolving door between the Labor Party and the gas cartel, that that will not be the case. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator McKim, I just thought about your words, and I think you have actually cast an aspersion. None of my colleagues have jumped up and down, and Ms King isn't in this chamber to defend herself. You know me; I go with the flow, but I'd probably seek your support to just maybe withdraw that comment about Minister King when she leaves here. I'd ask you, Senator McKim. Senator McKIM JKM You are a fair man, Acting Deputy President; I'm sure all your colleagues would agree. I withdraw those comments. Gas companies are cooking our planet. They are literally rendering it uninhabitable for human life. They're failing to pay a fair share of tax. They shift their profits offshore. They avoid paying super profits tax, and many of them are only now starting to pay company tax after the ATO beat Chevron in the High Court in 2017 regarding Chevron's practice of shifting large amounts of debt onto their Australian companies. Let's be very clear about this: the multinationals who own and operate so much of the gas cartel in this country are running rings around Australia's tax law. They are using every trick in the book, and the Labor Party has no interest whatsoever in calling them to account and ending those practices. The ATO's court actions have in many ways already corrected the more egregious debt-shifting behaviour of the gas companies. This bill implements a policy that both the Greens and the Labor Party took to the election: to limit the tax deductions that global corporations can make when they lend themselves money, which is what goes on all the time. Lending yourself money is an absolutely basic and fundamental strategy of tax dodgers. It's been made famous by gas companies in Australia who borrowed money from their parent company at a rate well above commercial rates—let's say 10 or 11 per cent—so that all the profits made in Australia are whittled down to nothing while the parent company, which is often miraculously based in tax havens like the US state of Delaware or Ireland or the Netherlands, makes extraordinary profits, which are of course not taxable in Australia. We all know how this stuff works. The difference is that some of us are prepared to stand up, call it out and take it on, but most of us are not. By shifting the test from assets to income, this bill implements the OECD's base erosion and profit-shifting program. However, quite predictably, the government has selected the weakest end of the range recommended by the OECD at 30 per cent of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation. Another time-honoured tactic of tax avoiders and tax dodgers that isn't covered by this bill is the use of price misallocation, where, instead of related companies providing loans to themselves, they sell the product to themselves. Rio Tinto made the Singapore sling famous by selling Australian minerals to their own marketing hubs based in low-tax jurisdictions. The profits, of course, accrue then to the marketing company, while the Australian extracting company miraculously fails to turn a profit. There is also a massive loophole being inserted into this bill by Labor that undermines the entire purpose of changing the test. Companies will be able to carry forward any deductions over that 30 per cent that I mentioned earlier into future years—for 15 years! In other words, the bill isn't actually going to stop excessive deductions; it is just spreading out the time that that tax avoidance can occur over many years. So to say that this bill doesn't meet the Greens' expectations is putting it mildly—and that was before Labor amended it late last year to further weaken those carry-forward debt deduction rules and reduce the power of the ATO to deny corporate deductions that are not made for valid commercial reasons. What an absolute shambles this is. What a clown show this Labor government is. What a bunch of patsies to the big tax-dodging corporations and the gas cartel this Labor Party is. I do want to acknowledge there were some improvements in the government amendments to support investment in large renewable energy projects as well the plantation industry. That will obviously be a necessary part of ending native forest logging around the country. This gives me an opportunity to acknowledge the absolutely incredible work done by my friend and colleague Senator Janet Rice. She has been a key part of the campaign, along with activists around the country, to end native forest logging in Australia. She's an awesome voice for voiceless threatened species that are being logged into extinction, like the swift parrot in my home state of Tasmania, and around ensuring that we acknowledge that plantations do have a key role to play in the transition out of native forest logging. Now, plantations are a unique industry; they have very long lead times and they do need unique financing structures that, at times, clash against some of the debt tests in this bill. I want to be clear: the Australian Greens are considering our position on legislation. There are some small steps forward in this bill, but there are other steps that take us backwards. We want to take a considered approach to this legislation. We do want to be constructive, but we also want to ensure that we are making laws in this place that will see big corporations pay more tax. It's time that the big corporate tax avoiders in this country were held to account. It's time that big corporations were forced to pay their fair share of tax so we can invest in things that allow more and more Australians to lead good and dignified lives, like putting dental and mental health into Medicare, like rising income support, like ensuring that child care is more affordable and like wiping student debt. Those are the things that we should be doing, and we should be making the big corporations pay for it. 12:52 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The Albanese government is acting to shed light on Frankenstein companies who are using overseas subsidiaries to rort our tax system. They've got bits and pieces of body all over the world, all arranged to make sure that taxes owed to this country aren't paid to this country. That sort of Frankenstein beast needs to be dealt with, and part of our strategy of dealing with that is this particular bill, the Treasury Law Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023, that's been put forward. It's bringing integrity and transparency to a fair paying tax system. We're currently consulting on draft legislation to introduce a 15 per cent global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax for multinational and national companies with annual global revenue of at least $1.2 billion. While we're consulting, we're passing this bill to increase transparency and stop multinationals claiming excessive debt reduction to duck their tax obligations. Jason Ward from the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research has done a deep dive into some of these dodgy tactics used by companies that operate and earn their profits in Australia but send the Frankenstein taxes overseas so that they can avoid tax altogether. Mr Ward found that Amazon Australia, 'Organises their businesses so the contractual payments from clients are paid directly to Amazon entities in Delaware, with a small amount of that revenue being returned to locally based Australian companies via service agreement.' Ward also found that Amazon was reporting, 'Low profits or losses in Australia by using potentially artificial expenses to avoid corporate income tax payments.' Amazon's cloud computing business, AWS Australia, claimed they were running at a loss by reporting $1.1 billion in administrative expenses. What makes that number is clear as mud: while they're raking in billions of dollars, they continue to penny-pinch on taxes and thumb their nose in the face of governments around the world. In 2023, Amazon had a revenue of A$878 billion and its founder, Jeff Bezos, had a personal wealth of $309 billion. Bezos is going to space using money stolen from Australian taxpayers while we're in the middle of cost-of-living challenges. He and his Orwellian company are literally reaching into the pockets of the Australian taxpayer, taking their hard earned dollars and squirrelling it away from the eyes of the law. Another company who uses these opaque tactics is McDonald's, whose franchisee model allows it to send profits offshore in the form of royalty fees for the use of intellectual property. In 2020, McDonald's paid $558.5 million in royalties to a shell company in the United Kingdom. This means the royalties were taxed at the UK's 19 per cent corporate tax rate rather than Australia's 30 per cent tax rate. By sending the fee offshore, the company's Australian income tax bill was reduced to just $120.4 billion. The golden arches, which have a long history of wage theft, union busting and insisting their staff give up their lunchbreak to use the bathroom, are shamelessly refusing to pay taxes. While Australian businesses don't have the benefit of profit-shifting, shell companies and tax havens, they pay their fair share for health, aged care and other essential public services. This bill will create transparency for revenue collection and level the playing field for all businesses. We welcome the support for this bill from the Tax Justice Network Australia, Publish What You Pay, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition. The government thanks them for contributing to the detailed consultation and inquiry into this bill. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry acknowledges that the government had listened to and implemented stakeholder feedback during the consultation process. The Liberals and Nationals, on the other hand, said in their dissenting report that they can't support this legislation, and they called it 'anti business'. The Liberals and Nationals would rather the potential tax revenue be in the offshore piggy banks of Bezos and McDonald's and their other big-business profit masters. That means less funding for schools, less funding for hospitals, less funding for housing. They are welcome to go back to those shifty tactics of those corporate giants over the wellbeing of Australian taxpayers. But I'm on the side and we're on the side of acting to close the corporate tax rorts used by multinationals and ensure that they pay their fair share of tax right here in Australia. 12:58 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales It's a great pleasure to be able to make some remarks about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. It's hard to escape the fact that the Labor government's tax policy has been a shambles since they came to office almost two years ago. This is just another example of the maladministration of the Labor government. I wonder if perhaps it stems from the absolute mess in the ministry where we see a Treasurer who has little to no interest in tax, we have an Assistant Treasurer who doesn't deal with any tax legislation and we have another assistant minister who apparently does deal with most of the tax legislation who last night said that the changes to the stage 3 tax cuts were a tax reform. Hilarious! If I introduce a tax bracket that was abolished by the parliament, apparently that's a reform. This is the sort of world we're living in—a world where Labor's ambition for the tax system is virtually zero; in fact, it's negative. It's a negative ambition because you're going back and reinserting tax brackets that were abolished by the last parliament. It's remarkable stuff. The tax shambles is across the board, and it is a major problem for the country, because we're heading in the wrong direction on personal income tax and we're heading in the wrong direction on business tax. Of course, the government have also taken it upon themselves to break a slew of election promises in relation to superannuation and franking arrangements. This is a real issue. I think we can all agree there are major inefficiencies and major problems with our tax system. I'm sure that everyone in this chamber and in the House would agree that people find our tax system disincentivising, frustrating and ugly at times, but the options here for reform are virtually nothing, and the government's own policies that they took to the election, which were pretty threadbare in that they ran a small-target strategy, are not really going to lift the ambition at all. I think the multinational tax piece is a good example. There is no doubt that base erosion and profit shifting has been a major issue, and everyone agrees that companies ought to pay their fair share of taxation. These are easy talking points for anyone, but, a bit like with carbon emissions, it's very hard for Australia to solve these things on its own. That's why working with multinational institutions is very important. It's why, when there's a debate about climate change, there's a conference-of-the-parties meeting, and it's why, when there's a debate about tax issues, particularly in relation to base erosion and profit shifting, there's a need for us to engage with the OECD and other international bodies. Of course, we don't want to have the balloon effect here, which is when we squeeze at one end and that causes a distortion elsewhere. We will just push businesses offshore. We are competing in a dynamic global market for capital and for labour, and that's why we should always try to align legislative definitions with global best practice. That is going to be the best way to defeat base erosion and profit shifting. This particular bill, which has been at the Senate economics committee for some time, was heavily amended at the end of last year, and we had to do a secondary inquiry after the government introduced dozens of amendments. The government had to amend its own legislation dozens of times because the Senate committee recommended that it was not going to be effective as drafted. I wonder if that has something to do with a lack of ministerial engagement. It does seem strange to me that if you have a minister for taxation, which is effectively what the Assistant Treasurer is, that minister isn't dealing with this bill. It seems very strange that Dr Leigh has been given this bill, which has been subject to these dozens of amendments. Indeed, a second Senate economics committee inquiry identified more technical issues in relation to this bill. No-one disagrees with the thrust of the legislation, which is designed to rein in base erosion and profit shifting. In fact, going back almost a decade, governments of all colours have sought to rein that in. The issue here is whether the amendments are going to be effective or whether they will have perverse impacts on the economy. Certainly the property industry would say—and they did say it to the Senate committee—that there are major issues in relation to the drafting. In fact, they said that there would be a problem with supply, in that, as the Property Council said: … if passed in its current form, the bill will hurt project feasibility such that the investment returns of many large-scale projects—think housing projects … The Property Council said that the 1.2 million housing target policy of the government was going to be put under threat by this bill. You don't need to be an expert on housing to know that the government's housing target policy of 1.2 million is already dead. It's a dead duck already. It's dead in New South Wales because Chris Minns said that he's not going to comply with Canberra's policy. It's dead in the water because the Labor government in Canberra has done nothing to promote supply. In fact, according to the people who will be asked to build these houses, this bill will make it much harder. When we were running these various inquiries into this bill, I thought it a worthwhile initiative to ask the Treasury what sort of modelling had been done because, if the property, building and construction industry is saying to the parliament that this bill is going to make it harder to build houses, I would have thought that the government of the day would take that reasonably seriously. So, in the committee process, I said: Given the importance of housing to this nation and how difficult it is for young Australians, particularly millennials and gen Zs, to get into a house, why wouldn't you and the government have commissioned modelling to look at the impact of this bill? And the Treasury official said: I think that goes to the difficulty in actually undertaking detailed sectoral analysis in terms of modelling those sorts of effects. So a major tax bill that is going to impact the way the building and construction industry go about building houses has not been modelled at all by the government or the Treasury. This is baffling stuff. The reason that the private economy is saying that it's a problem is that it's going to play around with the debt deduction creation rules, and it's going to do that ahead of some of the global action that's going to be required to beat down base erosion and profit shifting. So, for reasons that are unclear to us, Dr Leigh has decided to progress the debt deduction creation rules that are going to cause great uncertainty to major housing projects. That is the major issue here when you look at the detail of the bill. The government want to press ahead with a policy they announced at the last election, which no-one will disagree with—to make multinationals pay their fair share of taxation—but by including these debt deduction creation rules, which have been the subject of two separate Senate economics inquiries, they are going to put development at risk. Unfortunately, Australia has relied upon foreign capital since the First Fleet, and we still rely upon foreign capital. I don't want to see us become a country where foreign fund managers and major super funds own all the houses, but there could be a role here for foreign capital in helping build up our housing stock. We need to build more than a million houses in the next five years if we're going to be able to house our children, so I would have thought that we would want every option on the table. We don't want to chase away good foreign investment which is going to invest in houses that Australians can live in. That is the great risk here with this bill—that the government has introduced a bill and is now seeking to pass a bill that will make it even harder for Australians to access a home. So, in addition to having no policies that will be followed through on housing supply and with a 'who cares' approach to housing demand, the government is putting at risk projects that would have gone ahead. We're seeing a great amount of neglect when it comes to housing policy in Australia, which is why I imagine the Minister for Housing is in a witness protection program and can't be seen in any major media outlets. I'll finish on this point. It is very peculiar that the minister for taxation doesn't seem to want to have anything to do with his own legislation and is farming it out to poor old Dr Leigh, who has been sent to manage this mess of a bill, which is in such bad shape that it could undermine the government's own housing policy. I move: Omit all words after "That", substitute: (a) the Government amendments on sheet RU100 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 February 2024; and (b) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the committee has reported. 13:10 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Why? That's one question that I want to ask repeatedly in this speech. I see the government's changes as a welcome step, but it's a tiny, tiny step and we need many, many more. It could be one of my footprints, Senator Ayres! We see the government's previous tax changes. They weren't cuts; they were changes. As a result of those changes, we will see the government increase revenue by about $38 billion over the next four years—so much for tax cuts. They're tax changes that will lead to an increase in tax for mums and dads. Why are politicians scared of tax reform, and why do they place the burden on families and individuals to pay tax and let multinationals off the hook? Why are politicians scared of tax reform, but they continue tinkering with the system to affect mums and dads, who end up by paying, by far, the lion's share of tax in this country? Why did Senator Sharma, in a very good speech, say that he wants to end bracket creep and the Liberals want end to bracket creep, yet, three weeks earlier, they voted against ending bracket creep with my amendment? They want enduring bracket creep. Why do the Labor Party say they want to end bracket creep—I remember Senator Gallagher said at the time, 'We want to end bracket creep'—but vote against it? My amendment to abolish bracket creep once and for all was defeated. Why is taxation not transparent? I'll tell you why. It's so that governments can continue to steal money from families to pay for their uncosted bribes. The Senate and the House of Representatives have turned into auction blocks using taxpayers' money to buy votes. That's what they've turned into. That's how the governments of this country work, the uniparty of Labor and the Liberals. Why is the uniparty looking for new ways to tax people? Cars and utes—the foundations for tradies—are now going to be taxed. Clothing is going to be taxed under the Labor Party. Food will be taxed with a new biosecurity levy. Inflation was caused by the Labor and Liberal uniparty during the COVID response—the COVID mismanagement. State premiers were largely Labor, and the federal Prime Minister was Liberal-National. Inflation is a tax, especially on the poor and those with low incomes. Inflation is a huge tax burden. Greenwashing requires corporations to buy carbon dioxide credits. How do they pass the costs on? They pass them on in the form of higher prices. Why do they require diversity, equity and inclusion and ESG reporting, which are ridiculous and unfounded? No-one has provided the evidence for that policy. It's a compliance tax. Where will the cost of that compliance tax go? Onto the things that mums and dads and families pay for. Whole departments have been created in corporations, and that adds to the prices families have to pay. Why more tinkering? Why more complexity and less productivity? Think about the behaviours this drives with regard to allocation of resources and the behaviour of executives and decision-makers. Why is it that every problem in this country comes out of this building, like housing and excessive immigration, which is putting inhuman catastrophic pressures on people now? People are living in tents, cars, caravans, out in the street and under bridges in Brisbane in one of the richest states in the world. This is happening in our regional cities right up and down the east coast of Queensland. It's a long coast. The Murray-Darling Basin is a disaster. It's climate fraud, a lie and a scam. It's a hoax. Stealing farmers' property rights—the Liberal-National government did that from 1997 to 2007. We're still living with COVID mismanagement. I had a gentleman in my office today who is vaccine injured. It's been stated by doctors We had to turn the lights off because of the glare. He couldn't look straight at the windows. He had to look down. This was a vibrant healthy person now with COVID vaccine damage. He's almost incapacitated. This was a lively human being now pulled up. We're still living with the COVID mismanagement. There's inflation from the money supply, as I mentioned. There's inflation from crippling the supply chains during the COVID restrictions. Crippling our supply chains led to higher prices. Senator Bilyk HZB President, I raise a point of order on relevance. We're here to speak about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. Not once has the senator mentioned anything to do with that bill, and it's been five minutes. I'm just wondering if you could draw to the attention— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you, Senator Bilyk. I will remind Senator Roberts of the topic, but, as you and other senators know, it's a broad-ranging debate. Senator ROBERTS 266524 For those senators with poor hearing, let me say again: we support this bill. That's what I opened with. We support this bill—I'll repeat it. I said that. I've just laid down a litany of problems that are coming from this building in betrayal of the people in this country, my fellow Australians. I'm now getting to the point of that betrayal. The most destructive system in government under the uniparty for the last 70 years has been the taxation system. It focuses our brightest and best people, some of our lawyers and accountants, not on serving our country in competition with foreign companies overseas—the Koreans, the Japanese, the Taiwanese, the Chinese, the Europeans and the Americans—but on screwing the government and getting away from complex, ridiculous taxation systems. They're focused not on competing with foreign owned corporations but on competing with our government. Think of the behaviours that are driven at the corporate level, the allocation of resources, the inefficiency of resources and the behaviour of executives. Taxation is highly complex. How many pages are there in our taxation act? It's highly inefficient directly in terms of allocation of resources and indirectly in terms of the behaviours that are driven. It's directly inefficient in terms of the way taxation is levied in this country. James Killaly is a former deputy commissioner of taxation in charge of large companies and foreign matters. He said in 1996 and 2010, 'Ninety per cent of Australia's large companies are foreign owned and, since 1953, have paid little or no tax.' This bill does go a little way towards addressing that, but we need to address it full on. Why does that happen? Why are foreign companies getting let off the hook? I'll tell you why. It's because many of even our large Australian companies are part-owned and controlled by foreign corporations. The major predators are Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street and First State. They own 10 per cent of the four banks combined and they own the controlling interest. They tell the banks what to do—BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others in that little cohort of multinational predatory organisations. We don't have four main banks. We have one main bank that is hiding behind four logos. That's what we have. They have the same policies, principles, strategies, products and services. Coles and Woolies, again, are part owned by BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard. If you go right through our corporations in this country, the corporations we thought were Australian owned, they're foreign owned and controlled, and where does the money go? The profit goes overseas. What did the Morrison government do, along with the state premiers? They loaded it up so that foreign multinationals that own the large companies in this country made a killing out of COVID at the expense of small companies and small businesses. On the other hand, look at Qatar and Norway. They have bountiful natural resources, just like us—not as much as we have, in fact, and yet they make so much more. Qatar made $78 billion out of its gas exports. We export more and we made a tiny fraction of that, around one per cent of that. So why are we doing this? What I'm saying and have been saying for many years, ever since I got into the Senate, is that we need comprehensive, proper and honest tax reform. Let's have a look at the person who introduced GST into this country. Paul Keating was the Treasurer and, I think, Deputy Prime Minister under Bob Hawke. He came so close to introducing the GST, and, at the last minute, the Prime Minister at the time, Bob Hawke, fell over and lacked the courage to do so. Paul Keating was very upset with that. A few years later, John Hewson introduced the GST as part of Liberal Party policy, and who smashed him over it? Paul Keating, the man who introduced the concept of GST to this country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Roberts, I will remind you to use people's correct titles when referring to former prime ministers. Senator ROBERTS 266524 He was the Treasurer at the time. What I'm saying is that the taxation system was mooted for change, and the person who introduced the GST actually smashed the GST, for purely political reasons. On another aspect of comprehensive tax reform, Treasurer Peter Costello—who has been admired as a Treasurer—found out that Senator Pauline Hanson, who at the time was a member of the lower house, was keen on the transaction tax. As a way of trying to destroy her, he destroyed the transaction tax, even though he had previously said publicly that it had a lot of merit. The point I'm getting to is: taxation has become a political football. It's not an honest debate anymore; it's about smashing a system. So what I propose is that, instead of proposing a system, we should look at basic principles. We should first of all agree that the taxation system is one of the most destructive systems in this country, if not the most destructive, which is my opinion of it. Once we get agreement on that, we should then put forward a set of principles that we can agree on. I've been giving some thought to principles. First of all, a fair, efficient and honest taxation system would enable us to receive far more income, because the multinationals would be paying their fair share of tax. It should be fair and equitable to all people and to all economic entities, including Australian businesses, and with no exemptions for foreign companies, which are now largely exempt. Making foreign companies and speculators pay their fair share of tax would quickly end the budget deficit and overseas debt and fund future infrastructure without borrowing. The second principle: it should be in the national interest. The third principle—and this is very, very important for a country, and the reason I went through the problems that are coming from this building—is that it should be incorruptible and impossible for politicians to fiddle with. A major source of political power is the ability of politicians to make legislation that punishes or advantages particular groups. This ability gives politicians from the uniparty enormous power over others because they can enact, for example, taxation provisions that assist their supporters or hurt their supporters' competitors. An honest tax system removes this blatant abuse of power. The fourth principle: it should comply with and support our Constitution's intent and written provisions—not contradict our Constitution but comply with it. The fifth principle: there should be simplicity in understanding, administration and accountability. It should be completely transparent, unlike the current taxation system, which is deliberately opaque. There should be an objective basis for levying tax. Instead of assessing tax on profit and loss that can be fiddled, use objective measures. These do exist and include, for example, market sale price or straight-out unit cost. The taxation system needs to be constructive, not punitive. It needs to be efficient to administer, with low administration costs, not the unwieldy behemoth that is administering, or mismanaging, tax at the moment. It should increase people's purchasing power. A good taxation system, an efficient taxation system, will increase people's purchasing power so people are economically far better off, because the burden will be shifted more towards multinationals. The next principle: there should be minimal disruption to the economy, with no ability for politicians to manipulate the tax system across industry sectors or industry groups. The taxation system could be a wonderful way of getting aggregate economic data and detailed data. The next principle is arguably one of the most important: accountability. When properly designed, a tax system develops accountability in the government and in the people, through being a restraint on the cost of government. Taxes are necessary to pay for the cost of government, but what happens at the moment, because politicians from the uniparty can ratchet taxation up freely, is that they tend to abuse it and neglect their accountability to the people for managing costs. Politicians will have to manage within the country's means. The next principle: it should help people to become independent of government. In wrapping up I want to say, again, to the senators who didn't hear me in my opening comments: we support this bill. But it is far too little. Why is it too little? We have plenty of money in this country for investment. We have super funds holding enormous sacks of gold, from rivers of gold. I'm asking the government to change your ways. Put families before large, foreign multinationals—Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard, First State. Put national interest before large, foreign multinationals. Reclaim our national sovereignty, and put it before large, foreign multinationals. Put Australia and Australians first. I asked this question at the start: why? I ask this question now: why not? 13:25 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania In the interests of time, I won't speak for very long today on the Treasury Law Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023. The concept of fairness defines who we are as Australians and how we view ourselves as global citizens. From our beginnings as a classless society, we all expect a fair go, and we all expect everyone to pay their fair share. Sadly, the playing field is not so level when it comes to multinationals paying their fair share of taxes, and Australians are rightly angry. I've spoken in this place many times about the urgent need to address the issue of multinational companies paying their fair share of taxes. Around 34 per cent of our largest and most profitable companies paid no tax in 2016-17. In the ninth and most recent ATO annual tax transparency report for 2021-22, it's clear to see that not that much has changed in the past five years. Thirty-one per cent, or 831, of Australia's largest corporations once again paid zero tax for the financial year. The average Australian worker paid more tax in the last financial year than a lot of our richest companies, many of which had earned over a billion dollars in total income. The local plumber, taxi driver, nurse or teacher's aide does not earn anywhere close to $1 billion a year, yet they somehow pay higher taxes than companies that earn more money in one day than these workers make in their entire lifetime. Multinational tax avoidance is one of the biggest contributors to inequality in Australia, and by avoiding paying their fair share of taxes these companies are reducing the revenue available to pay for essential services for the Australian people. This means that there is less money for the government to spend on essential services such as health care and education as well as critical infrastructure, including major roads, rail and bridges. Companies that do the right thing when it comes to paying their fair share of taxes are also disadvantaged. Domestic businesses and small businesses, in particular, do not have the ability to exploit mismatches in the international tax system. When taxpayers see multinational corporations legally avoiding income tax, it undermines voluntary compliance by all taxpayers. Unlike our predecessors, we believe that all Australians deserve and expect a level playing field when it comes to paying taxes. Passage of this bill will require companies to disclose information on the number of subsidiaries and their country of tax domicile, ensuring that large corporate groups are more transparent about their corporate structures. This increased transparency will allow authorities to hold companies to account for engaging in opaque tax practices, such as through the use of subsidiaries located in low-tax jurisdictions, thereby informing government on whether tax laws are operating as intended in collecting the right amount of revenue. Companies will only be required to disclose their subsidiaries and their locations as part of their annual financial report, thereby reducing any extra compliance burdens as a result of these tax changes. This is in line with international approaches. Schedule 2 of this bill strengthens Australia's thin capitalisation rules. Thin capitalisation is a financial strategy that involves a company financing its operations primarily through debt rather than equity. Because interest on debt is tax deductible, multinationals can adjust their debt levels and use related party borrowings to minimise the amount of tax they pay. This allows the company to benefit from the tax advantages of interest deductions on the debt—often using excessive interest payments to artificially reduce their tax liability. Schedule 2 of this bill limits debt deductions of multinational corporations to 30 per cent of profits. This fixed ratio based approach will replace the current safe harbour test and ensures that deductions are directly tied to the company's economic activity. Interest expense amounts exceeding the 30 per cent fixed ratio debt deductions will be able to be carried forward and claimed in subsequent income years, up to 15 years, thus ensuring that small entities with greater earning volatility are not adversely affected by this bill. A third party debt test is also being introduced. This test has been designed primarily for the property and infrastructure sectors, which tend to be more heavily geared and provide greater flexibility to deduct genuine third-party debt in a manner consistent with common debt financing arrangements, while balancing the overall tax integrity nature of this bill. We introduced this bill— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It is 1.30 pm, and we shall now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 14 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Da Rui, Mr Greg 14 13:30 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Western Australia is a great state to live in. Perth is a wonderful city to live in. And amongst the beautiful suburbs of Perth in Western Australia is a great place called Bayswater. This afternoon I want to call out the City of Bayswater Community Citizen of the Year and thank him on behalf of myself, on behalf of Future Bayswater and on behalf of everyone that lives in and around the Bayswater community. That gentleman, that community champion, is known as Greg Da Rui. He's a champion for better urban design, he's been a champion for urban planning, he's been a champion for the twilight markets, and he's been a champion for Bayswater's first street festival. Importantly, he's been a champion for those people in need in the Bayswater community; he and others set up the '6053 food pantry' for people in need. Why '6053'? That is of course the postcode for Bayswater in Perth in Western Australia. I can't remember a day when I have ever driven down King William Street, either as a child or now as a senator, where I have not seen Pharmacy 777, because Greg Da Rui is also a local businessman who cares about his community and cares about local businesses. I just want to extend our deepest appreciation for everything that he has done over recent years and that he continues to do. As the founder of the Bayswater Traders Association, Gary Warne said, 'Greg is an absolute champion of our community.' It's a shame that we can't have many community champions like Greg Da Rui, but I use this occasion to congratulate him and to extend our thanks to his family for the support he gets from them as well. Murdoch Children's Research Institute 14 13:32 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Every child deserves the chance to live a long and healthy life. I'm proud to say that in my home state of Victoria the incredible team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute are working to deliver just that. Their work in genetic stem cell medicine and population health studies are changing what's possible for children and families in Australia and around the world. They put the wellbeing and health of children at the heart of everything they do, and their hard work and passion for improving the lives of children is commendable. MCRI is the largest child health research institute in Australia and is ranked in the top three globally. With a team of 1,800 researchers, MCRI has projects spanning 150 diseases and conditions affecting children. They have established an Aboriginal health program to address existing gaps and to promote health, wellbeing and equity for First Nations children. I commend the MCRI for listening to and working directly with Aboriginal communities to co-design their research strategy in a culturally sensitive way. Earlier this month, I was lucky to meet with Professors Goldfield, Brown and Gee and tour the MCRI facility. Seeing their work firsthand was incredibly inspiring, and I thank everyone at the MCRI for the work they do for our children and for future generations. The MCRI is working on Australia's largest study of children and parents, with 115,000 participants taking part in the Generation Victoria Project, including me and my son, Ari. GenV is the only mega-cohort of children and families launched anywhere in the world over the last decade, including during the COVID years, which will tell us a whole heap of information about how our kids have fared through the pandemic for generations to come. The team at MCRI want to make sure that, no matter where you are born or where you grow up, your health outcomes will be the same. It's very cool and a bit unique that the data from little Ari and I will contribute to this research to help improve the health and wellbeing of children and their families for generations to come. Coalmining Industry 14 13:34 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Four years after Adani's climate-wrecking Carmichael coalmine was approved in my home state of Queensland, Adani has taken the Queensland government to court to avoid employing locals. Adani, now called Bravus, has once again shown its moral bankruptcy. Sadly, on this court challenge, the Queensland government kowtowed, so Adani dropped its case. The Queensland government should have held the line on employing locals. Instead, like always, the Queensland government fell over itself to approve this coalmine and then appeased the mining giant with public subsidies, ignoring job security for locals. Adani has failed multiple times to support the Clermont community. The upgrade of a local road was a condition of Adani's state approvals. Adani says works have begun, but the road is not complete. It's behind schedule so much that last year the Isaac Regional Council began legal action, saying that Adani had failed to meet its obligations. That case is ongoing. Adani and the fossil fuel addicted governments on both sides of politics who enable them are the bad guys here. The workers who believed their lies now face uncertain futures. It is an utter betrayal. Queensland workers deserve job security and a just transition away from coal. They deserve to co-design that transition and what will come next. The Greens have always prioritised workers and always will prioritise workers. We have a plan to support all the coal workers to transition to new industries with a 10-year wages guarantee and free retraining if any retraining is needed. In contrast, both Labor and Liberal governments have shown time and time again that they would rather put local jobs at the whim of the profits of overseas mining corporations like Adani. Adani's latest court case to avoid employing locals is yet another wake-up call. Never believe a fossil fuel company when they say they want to create good jobs. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 15 13:36 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales When I grow up, I want a caravan. I want to join the tens of thousands of Australians who, as summer fades, hear the call of the open road and travel into the outback. Whether they're off around Australia to some of my favourite places, like Sapphire, Rubyvale, Lightning Ridge or Coober Pedy, or whether they're off to one of the fantastic regional festivals, like the Big Red Bash in Birdsville or the Mundi Mundi Bash in Broken Hill— Senator Scarr 282997 Or Winton. Senator DAVEY 281697 Or Winton. This community of Australians, who love our country, are part of an industry worth $27 billion to our economy annually, as I learnt last week at the Parliamentary Friends of Caravanning event held in conjunction with the Caravan Industry Association of Australia. Just about every community in regional Australia has a caravan park. It brings employment and jobs. However, this industry is threatened by the Albanese government's towing tax. It takes a large car or SUV to tow a caravan efficiently and effectively, and to date there is no electric alternative. Despite the partial backdown announced overnight, this Labor government's new towing tax will be a blow to the thousands of caravanning enthusiasts around the country. It will be a blow to the caravan parks, it will be a blow to the festivals, and it will be a blow to many regional communities because fewer vans on the road will mean fewer jobs in those communities. Domestic and Family Violence 15 13:38 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Family and domestic violence continues to be alarmingly common in Australia. I rise to speak about coercive control, which often underpins the abusive dynamic. Unfortunately, some people in this chamber, like Senator Hanson, have made some appalling comments about the nature of domestic violence, so I want to set the record straight and outline why this issue is important and a big priority for our government. Coercive control isn't necessarily physical. Rather, it involves perpetrators using patterns of abusive behaviour over time to create fear, power and dominance over a person and to deny a person's liberty and autonomy. We know this issue requires a coordinated approach, so the National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence have been developed in collaboration with all state and territory governments. On that note, I'd like to commend Stopping Family Violence Inc., the peak body in WA supporting the services involved in providing essential support, training and care to victims-survivors of coercive control. Stopping Family Violence have recently collaborated with Wungening Aboriginal Corporation and Geraldton Regional Aboriginal Medical Service to produce culturally informed programs that aim to strengthen early intervention with men who choose to use violence. This project has been supported by the Albanese government, with $3.3 million in funding provided under the Innovative Perpetrator Response initiative. In the fight against domestic and family violence, everyone has a role to play, and I want to especially thank the incredible WA organisations that are on the front line protecting women and children and also give a big shout-out to Nicola Stokes for bringing this matter to our attention. Fossil Fuel Industry 15 13:40 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Over 7,000 people have contacted my office in the last three months about Woodside's and Labor's plans to wreck Murujuga sacred sites, sea country and the climate. I will read part of a statement by Raeleen Cooper, a proud Murujuga woman, who is here today trying to meet with Minister King, who seems to have time only for the oil and gas industry and not First People. Raeleen says: The government is attempting to prevent First Peoples having a voice by rushing through a bill to fast track offshore gas projects. This breaks the Free, Prior and Informed consent of First Peoples and the government's climate commitments. Again, we see the government not carrying out a required consultation process effectively and instead prioritising the interests of fossil fuel companies. Bending over backwards for them, paid off by the millions of dollars in campaign donations from the sector. In 2022, six UN special rapporteurs wrote to the federal government expressing their concerns about the human rights of the Murujuga. The letter said: The sacred songlines and stories contained in petroglyphs and rock art engravings are being damaged by emissions from the Burrup Hub and face total destruction within decades. Traditional custodians have voiced their opposition to further development on Murujuga but have been silenced by 'gag clauses' in industrial agreements with the Western Australian government. Labor needs to stop gagging, intimidating and silencing First Peoples and respect our right to protect country. Shame on you. (Time expired) Artificial Intelligence 16 13:42 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland For some time the coalition has sought to establish a select committee on opportunities and threats arising from artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence will see the greatest change to our economy since the steam engine. With the potential to revolutionise our technological, farming, manufacturing, banking, healthcare and education sectors, AI presents unique and significant opportunities for the Australian economy through job creation and boosting productivity and growth. However, AI also poses a severe threat to our sovereignty and our national security, with risks to our privacy, financial sector, cybersecurity and democratic institutions. AI also presents an unprecedented threat to our job market through risks of workforce deskilling and job displacement. Everything will change: how we work, how we live, how we play. Last week, Labor along with the Greens voted against the establishment of an inquiry into artificial intelligence. The coalition will continue to push for an inquiry into artificial intelligence, but any inquiry must consider the severe risks that AI poses to our national security. With the Labor government touting their national security prowess with the continuation of the coalition's AUKUS program, it will be interesting to see if Labor agrees to investigate the risks that AI poses to our sovereignty and our national security. It is sad and a sign of bad faith that Labor, the Greens and Senator Pocock have played such petty, petulant, partisan politics on such an important issue. Economy 16 13:44 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Last week, we saw one of the strongest indications yet that Labor's economic plan is delivering for Australians. Under the Albanese Labor government, unemployment is at near-record lows of just 3.7 per cent. We've seen more jobs created than any other first-term government on record: 790,000 new jobs. I make special mention of my home state of South Australia, where unemployment dropped to 3.2 per cent—the lowest rate recorded in that state. Under Labor, more people are in more jobs. From 1 July this year they will get to keep more of what they earn thanks to our tax plan, a tax plan that gives every worker a tax cut. We know that people have been feeling the cost-of-living pressures and we know that the work is far from over, but we will be doing everything that we possibly can as a government to support workers because that's what Labor governments do. As well as our cost-of-living measures and job creation, there are some really positive signs that other things are moving in the right direction as well. This comes from the careful, planned, strategic way that we have adjusted the levers on our economy. After significant stagnation under the previous government, we have seen wages growing at an annual average of four per cent, which is double what we saw from those opposite under their disgraceful IR policies. We're also seeing inflation start to moderate, which benefits everyone. Under this government, we're going from strength to strength in just one term. With lower taxes, lower unemployment and more opportunity, Australian workers are much, much better off under a Labor government. Gender And Sexual Orientation 16 13:46 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Following are parts of a letter written to the Prime Minister and other MPs by a young Tasmanian trans person, Amilie Courtney. Amilie writes: 'I'm 15 years of age and I'm writing for the rights and wellbeing of the LGBTQIA+ community, specifically issues related to trans rights. As someone who came out as trans at a young age, I have personally experienced the harmful effects of discrimination exemplified by instances such as the anti-trans rally led by individuals like Posie Parker. The vitriolic language used during such events contributes to the marginalisation and endangerment of the trans community.' Amilie goes on: 'I am troubled by the recent 7News Spotlight segment that framed being trans as a mere social media trend. This perpetuates harmful stereotypes and undermines the progress made in dismantling the outdated notion that being transgender is just a phase.' Further, Amilie says: 'As a result of such misinformation, the LGBTQIA+ community faces heightened levels of bullying, leading to severe mental health consequences and even suicide.' Amilie then goes on to list a raft of sensible policies that could be put in place to protect trans rights and the lives of trans people. Amilie, thank you so much for your humanity, for your articulate letter and for your courage. I could not agree with you more strongly. Migration 17 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory This morning I and other members of the crossbench met with an amazing group of young people who arrived in Australia more than a decade ago. They are Australian in every sense except on the piece of paper that matters. These young people are at critical times in their lives. Having gone through school here, they should be studying, building careers and pursuing their dreams. But they're not able to do that because they're living on rolling bridging visas of six-to-12 months, many without work and study rights. When the fast-track system was introduced by the coalition government in 2014, the Labor Party voted against it because they knew it wasn't fair. Now, in government, they're abolishing it altogether. But for the 9,000 people who were processed under that system and weren't successful, Labor seem to plan just to let those decisions stand. They say this group must wait years longer, appealing those unfair decisions in the Federal Court or waiting for the minister to personally intervene one by one by one. This is something the government should act on. We have people in our communities wanting to contribute. They love this country, they feel like it is home, they want to make a life here and they want to contribute, and yet we have a government that's giving them no pathway to do so. They said what the coalition did was bad, but they're not willing to actually make good on it. At a time where we hear so much about the need for workforce, look to the people who want to contribute who are here. I thank them for coming today and sharing their stories with us all. Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 17 13:50 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland It's another day and it's another rushed amendment to the Migration Act we see from the incompetent Albanese Labor government, another example of the Albanese Labor government's total mismanagement of the immigration portfolio. It is absolutely astounding. You couldn't make this stuff up, it's so bad, so incompetent. So what did we actually see today? We had senior members of the coalition frontbench, senior opposition shadow ministers, invited to a 20-minute briefing this morning where they were given notice of a bill to amend the Migration Act that's going to be introduced today and that needs to be passed before Easter. A 20-minute briefing on this new piece of legislation! And you know what? When they turned up at the briefing, they saw that the draft was date-stamped last Friday. Can you believe it? So the date stamp on this bill was last Friday. Were they given the briefing last Friday? No. Were they given the briefing last Saturday? No. What about Sunday? I'm sure they would have worked over the weekend in the national interest. Were they given the briefing Monday? No. They were given the briefing this morning. It is a total lack of respect. The other disturbing thing about this fiasco is that it's such a ramshackle process. How can this place properly consider this legislation when given less than one day's notice? It is an absolute lack of competence, a lack of scrutiny and, once again, a lack of transparency from the Albanese Labor government. Native Title 17 13:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Equal laws for all and special laws for none. One Nation stands for equality for all Australians regardless of race, and we don't have equality. Australians who own property only have rights on the surface and a shallow depth under it, but, when an Indigenous land council owns it, they appear to have rights to the centre of the earth and every part of the sky above. This would be a laughable joke if it weren't so serious. Such is the claim of the land council which owns the old, run-down Waverton Bowling Club, which is also claiming millions of dollars in compensation because the western harbour tunnel is being developed underneath. This would not be considered if the owner weren't Indigenous. Land for such projects can be compulsorily acquired under the New South Wales Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 unless it's owned by an Aboriginal land council. This racist discrimination has to stop. This is not equality under the law. This is racial inequality deliberately written into law. In 2022 in New South Wales, there were still more than 38,000 claims awaiting assessment under the state's Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. It is divisive, unfair and sheer stupidity to allow property rights that are denied to every other Australian. Enough is enough. And we must—and I stress 'must'—have a sunset clause on native title and land right claims, which already cover more than half the Australian continent. We must have a comprehensive audit on these land councils, Aboriginal corporations and charities, which make up an industry that absorbs billions of dollars every year to no positive effect. Wake up, Australia. You're being taken for mugs. Endometriosis 18 13:54 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia March is Endometriosis Awareness Month, and today I call for Ryeqo, the first oral tablet approved by the TGA for endometriosis pain, to be covered under the PBS. Diagnosis and effective treatment for endo remains elusive for many. New treatment options are essential, yet many have high financial barriers. Without being on the PBS, a prescription for Ryeqo is $135 or more for a one-month supply. This is a significant financial barrier that will prevent access altogether. It should not have taken so long to secure new treatment options for endometriosis, but a recent survey conducted by the National Women's Health Advisory Council shed some light as to why it has taken so long. The survey has revealed starkly the reality: two-thirds of women report bias or discrimination in Australian health care. First Nations women, women of colour, members of the queer community and people with diverse gender identities face compounding challenges due to intersecting biases and discriminatory practises. This bias and discrimination manifests in various ways, such as dismal diagnosis and dismissal rates in terms of symptoms, inadequate pain management and unequal access to treatment options. In 2024, medical misogyny and queerphobia remain rampant in the healthcare system. So many people are leaving medical appointments feeling gaslit, and that is unacceptable. Prime Minister 18 13:56 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I refer to the letter that was sent by religious leaders to the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General last week calling for the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General to reject the recommendations that have come from the ALRC report. This is one of the biggest attacks that we have seen upon religious freedom in this country—a systemic attack on religious freedoms in this country—and here we have today the Prime Minister offering a deal with the Greens to be able to deal directly with them rather than submitting the bill to this parliament. The Prime Minister should bring the bill to this parliament for us to be able to have an inquiry into this bill. We should not see a Judas deal done with the Australian Greens and put aside the interests and the sensitivities of people of faith across this country. What the Prime Minister is demonstrating through this dirty Judas deal with the Greens is that he fundamentally misunderstands the character and the importance of faith in the lives of all Australians. For a person of faith, your faith is not just an activity, it's not just something you have as an adjunct to your life, it is part of who you are. And for the Prime Minister to disregard the ability of this parliament to be able to have an inquiry to give all Australians the ability to look into this bill is an absolute outrage. Of all weeks, leading up to Easter, for us to see the Prime Minister prepared to do a dirty deal with the Greens— (Time expired) Natural Disasters 18 13:58 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I want to commend the contribution to the select committee on Australian disaster resilience recently made by the Fire Brigade Employees Union of New South Wales and the United Firefighters Union Queensland. As the unions representing 95 per cent of professional and retained firefighters in New South Wales and Queensland, there's no organisation more intimately aware of the experiences of our firies battling fires and other natural hazards. The cost to Australia of extreme weather has doubled since the 1970s. The FBEU of New South Wales supports the finding of the bushfire royal commission that better coordination is required to significantly reduce disaster risks and impacts in the future. The submission raises important questions around the models of retained and volunteer firefighter workforces. It also notes that the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research published a report in 2013 titled Firefighters and climate change. It said that, between 2013 and 2020, the nation would need a 20 per cent increase in professional full-time firefighters to deal with climate change. Unfortunately, this did not occur. The question of how we staff disaster recovery and response initiatives is one of the key challenges this country faces in this space. That's why we've undertaken an extensive consultation process on alternative capabilities for crisis response. I also want to support the FBEU and their secretary, Leighton Drury, in their campaign for a fair pay rise, because they've had 10 years of poor pay rises and they deserve a pay rise. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for this matter has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 19 14:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Can you provide a guarantee that there will be no price increases for any models of car, ute or SUV as a result of Labor's family car tax? A simple yes or no will suffice. 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I can guarantee is that Australians will have more choice. What I can guarantee is that Australians will have access to cars which save them money because they will use less fuel. What I can also guarantee is that the minister and the departments have gone through an exhaustive consultation process with industry, and, as a consequence, there have been changes made to the draft regulations and legislation which the government put out, or the draft policy positions. So I think this is an example of a government making sure that there is proper consultation with the sector and a government that listens. I know that that is something that those opposite may not recall ever happening under their government. This is a government that listens to industry and to consumers and seeks to put in place the most appropriate framework that ensures that Australia does join the many countries of the world as an advanced economy with a standard. Let's remember we are behind the eight ball, Senator. We are behind the eight ball. Other advanced economies have similar standards, and I know that what happened, again, is the same thing that happened on any action on climate change in your party room, which is that parts of the National Party vetoed it, which is why we are alongside Russia as an economy that doesn't have a standard. That's where you took us. Well, we want to move on. Consumers want to move on. We want to make sure Australians can choose from a wider range of more efficient modern vehicles and that they save at the petrol pump. This is the key thing, isn't it? You just want to make sure Australians don't get the choice of cars which are actually cheaper to run. Well, we do. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I'll take that as a no to the request on guarantee. Minister, can you guarantee that, under your new vehicle efficiency standard policy, no car models will be withdrawn from or have their access restricted by auto makers? Yes or no? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm sure that the senator watched the media conference. I'm sure that the senator knows that there will be changes to the fleet that Australia has as a consequence of this standard, and that will occur over time. I'm sure she would also know that, as I think one of the car manufacturers said, we need to get on with it. Do you know why we need to get on with it, Senator? Because you left us where Russia is. That's what happened. We are an advanced economy and we don't have a standard. That puts us out of kilter with the world. Senator McKenzie 207825 You could have actually had a longer trajectory. You could have had hybrids— Senator WONG 00AOU This is wonderful! She's suggesting a longer trajectory. Do you know what your trajectory was? Flatlining. That's what it was—flatlining forever, because Senator Canavan was always going to veto it. Unlike you, we actually want to get things done. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria They can't guarantee. As part of the government's press conference, Toyota, standing next to the ministers, said that Labor's revised family car tax is still a big challenge in achieving these ambitious targets, and it would be difficult. Toyota did not give a guarantee on prices and did not give a guarantee on models—just like you—because they can't. If there was a scare campaign and it's not a genuine threat to consumers and the auto industry, why has the government decided to backflip on this policy? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia 'If there was a scare campaign'—do you remember when we were going to end the weekend? Oh, my goodness. Senator Watt 245759 End the backyard barbecue. Senator WONG 00AOU We were going end the backyard barbeque and end the weekend. Give us a break. You are stuck in the past on this. You are nowhere near where most of the advanced economies in the world are. You are happy to have us where Mr Putin has Russia in terms of standards. Let's remember what the car makers have said. You quoted Toyota. They said: We want an emission standard that's basically ambitious, but also brings people on the journey and doesn't leave people behind, which is where we are— The Toyota chief executive said: 'I think the amendments have been made. We think the amendments are a positive step forward.' Yes, there is work to do, and change sometimes actually requires work to be done. But we don't think where being Russia is on this is a good thing for Australia— (Time expired) Cost of Living 20 14:05 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I note that the Albanese Labor government's No. 1 priority is helping Australians with their cost of living in every way we can and addressing inflation. Can the minister please tell the Senate how the government is delivering cost-of-living relief for all Australians? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Grogan for her question. The senator has spent so much of her working life in so many roles advocating for working people and for disadvantaged Australians. She understands very acutely that people are doing it tough and what this government can and should do to ensure that we ease the cost of living for Australians. Of course, our cost-of-living tax cuts will deliver a better tax cut, a bigger tax cut, for more Australians. That's every single Australian taxpayer, not just some. Eighty-four per cent will be better off—90 per cent of women and 98 per cent of young people. We know, unlike those opposite, aspiration isn't just something that belongs to the top tax bracket. We on this side want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. This week, the government will make its submission to the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review, and we will recommend that the commission ensures that the real wages of Australia's low-paid workers don't go backwards. The alternative, of course, is those opposite, who want Australians to work longer for less. That wonderful quote machine, Mr Barnaby Joyce, said raising the minimum wage was 'window dressing'. What sort of out-of-touch perspective is someone who reckons that a wage rise for the lowest paid workers in Australia is window dressing and doesn't matter? You have to really be pretty out of touch to think that that is the case. Those opposite have spoken with pride about keeping wages deliberately low, claiming it's a feature of their economic policy. Senator Ruston 243273 Seriously! Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, seriously, Senator Ruston, that is what you have said. That is what your leader and finance minister said. I was sitting across the table. Seriously, where are you when it comes to low-paid workers? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a first supplementary? 14:08 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia President, it's less than two years since the coalition's decade of denial and delay came to an end. Can the minister outline what the Albanese Labor government has done to improve the lives of Australians in that time? 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We understand the importance of delivering cost-of-living relief, unlike those opposite. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Ruston keeps interjecting and seems to forget that she was on the side that voted for higher energy prices. She was on the side that voted against making sure people were given relief on energy prices. She's on the side that voted that way and she was particularly loud in front of that debate. You wanted more expensive medicines. You voted against cheaper medicines. Senator Ruston, if you want to keep yelling at me, we can remind everybody— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, I remind you to direct your answers to the chair. I will call others to order, particularly on my left. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you, President. If Senator Ruston wants to keep interjecting, as is her wont, it might be good for everyone to remember all of the campaigns she's been for which were about making the cost of living worse for Australians. Senator Grogan, we take a different view on this side. I know you take a different view. That's why we are investing in Medicare. We are investing in bulk-billing and in cheaper medicines. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a second supplementary? 14:09 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I thank the minister for that answer. I've spoken to many people in my home state of South Australia who've warmly welcomed the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts and the work that we've done to help Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. Can the minister please inform the Senate what responses the government's tax cuts have received more broadly? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Grogan would know we went out and spoke to Australians and we said to them, 'We are changing our position because it's the rights thing to do and we are doing it because we understand the cost of living is biting and we want to deliver bigger and better tax cuts for more Australians and we want to make sure that more women and more workers on average incomes get a better share of the tax cuts.' I know that was very hard for the opposition to stomach. Their gut reaction was to oppose these tax cuts. You might remember what Ms Ley said about this—that they were going to roll them back. She said, 'We're going to roll back the tax cuts.' Now Senator Hume is still talking about going back to the drawing board. What are Australians supposed to understand? That the coalition, which has always wanted a very different set of tax cuts, always took a low wage approach to policy— (Time expired) Housing Supply 21 14:11 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. I refer to recent reporting in the Financial Review that new housing supply will soon hit the lowest levels in a decade. Are higher interest rates and punitive new industrial relations laws hurting or helping the housing construction sector? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'll tell you what hasn't helped housing is the Commonwealth not having a policy on it for 10 years when they were in government. I'll tell you what hasn't helped the housing shortage is a migration system that was broken under Mr Dutton and has required fixing. I'll tell you what else hasn't helped housing and the housing shortage: the skills shortage that we have after years of failure to invest in vocational education and training, something we are also fixing. I'll also tell you what's not helping is those opposite continuously opposing every measure that we try to put in place to address housing supply, like the Housing Australia Future Fund, for example, where we get an ongoing stream of funding going into social and affordable housing, or some of our other initiatives, whether it be Help to Buy, Build to Rent. You are opposed to all of those. We have an enormous amount of investment going into housing. We recognise that not enough has been done, particularly over the last decade, when the only answer to the housing shortage was to ransack your super in order to pay a deposit, which would have directly increased the cost of housing. We are getting on with the job. We are getting on with the job of building houses, whether they be social and affordable houses or getting people into home ownership or the work that national cabinet is doing around renters' rights—acknowledging a large part of the population are renting now. We are doing everything we can, and I would say to Senator Bragg, if he is genuinely interested in housing beyond superannuation for housing, 'Work with us on this to increase supply, work with the states and territories, work with local government, to make sure that we're doing everything we can to increase housing supply in this country.' The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, a first supplementary? 14:13 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Do you believe that you'll ever get to your target of 1.2 million new homes by 2029? 14:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We're proud of setting a target and then putting everything we can and then underpinning that with all of the policies that we need to drive that. We've put the effort in to drive the change that's needed in this country. This did not happen overnight. I love the fact that those opposite decide that, now that they're in opposition, they're going to get interested in housing and housing affordability. When they were in government for 10 years, there was zero interest. There were cuts to the homelessness and housing agreement. There was a withdrawal of the Commonwealth from the housing space. From day one, we have fronted up and said: 'We are involved in this. We are prepared to fund it.' We have put billions of dollars into driving supply, and we are working to achieve all of those targets. That involves the private sector, it involves the states and territories, and it involves the Commonwealth. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, a second supplementary? 14:15 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Minister, the Labor government's policy appears to have one central aim, which is to get the super funds to own the houses in Australia. Why is the government so preoccupied by its own vested interests rather than developing and creating solutions— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator BRAGG 256063 Sorry; I can't hear myself over the din here. Why is the government so preoccupied with your favourite vested interests rather than trying to find— Government senators interjecting— Senator BRAGG 256063 Sorry; it's hard to hear, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, I have called the chamber to order. You are wasting time. Please finish your question. Senator BRAGG 256063 Why are vested interests more important than the national interest here? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory What a load of rubbish that question is! Go and have a look. Engage in the debate on the numerous housing policies we have. I accept that Senator Bragg doesn't like the superannuation industry. I sit in estimates; I listen to him every estimates session seeking to undermine and attack superannuation. I do find it interesting that those that seek to undermine superannuation all have superannuation, and they're all prepared to say to everybody else, 'You should ransack your super,' instead of actually dealing with the housing policy and the measures that need to be put in place to drive the change. We have a coordinated plan. It's being led by Julie Collins from the other place. It's being led by the Treasurer. It's being led by the Prime Minister. First ministers are standing up. Mayors are standing up. Everybody recognises we've got to do more on housing, and this government is prepared to do it. Assange, Mr Julian Paul 22 14:17 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Right now, Julian Assange's life is hanging by a thread. We know that tonight, Australian time, there'll be a decision from the UK courts on his last appeal. If he's extradited to the United States, the medical evidence is clear: he will likely never return. What is your government doing to obtain his free return home? 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Shoebridge for the question. He is correct; we do understand that a decision on Mr Assange's case is expected soon. As you would know, this matter is before the UK courts. I appreciate that Senator Shoebridge has previously made comments, with which we don't agree, about our capacity to intervene in legal proceedings of another country—another jurisdiction. Obviously, the Australian government cannot do that. I can confirm, however, that the Prime Minister and I have personally raised this issue with both the United States and the United Kingdom. I can confirm that that occurred very recently in the last instance, and there have been an ongoing set of representations. The government is also engaging closely with Mr Assange and his legal team, and we will continue to do this. There is obviously strong interest in this case. There is a depth of community sentiment. The Prime Minister has said quite clearly publicly and I have reiterated that we believe that enough is enough and there is nothing to be served by Mr Assange's ongoing incarceration. Obviously, we have also ensured that Mr Assange has been visited by our high commissioner, Mr Smith. And, as I said to you previously, Senator, there is a limit, until Mr Assange's legal processes are concluded, on what government can do. As you will recall, a resolution by government was only possible after legal processes had been concluded in a— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary? 14:19 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales If Julian Assange loses his appeal tonight, what, if any, assurance have you sought from our close friends in the United Kingdom and the United States that he will not immediately be deported to the United States? Are you leveraging our multibillion-dollar AUKUS commitments or any other diplomatic asset to defend the fundamental rights of a citizen? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We have made representations, and you will recall, Senator, that, in relation to the United Kingdom's legal proceedings, we are not in a position to intervene in the legal proceedings of another country; however, we have made clear our view that there is nothing more to be served by this matter of Mr Assange continuing to be incarcerated and we believe the matter should be brought to an end. I can only indicate to you that we are engaging at a government-to-government level, and the government has also been engaging with Mr Assange's legal team. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:20 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, there are global concerns about the precedent this case would set if the USA is able to try a foreign citizen for journalism, with the former UN special rapporteur on torture saying, 'If Julian Assange is convicted, it will be a death sentence for freedom of the press.' What assurance will you give Australian journalists that this government will not be bullied by the US into handing over a journalist from Australia for prosecution there? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think that's a hypothetical question, and a made-up question, because there is no— Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 How is it hypothetical? Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Whish-Wilson, would you like to make a speech, because you always just interrupt the question time. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I could probably do a better job than you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, withdraw that comment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, when you withdraw, you stand and you withdraw respectfully. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I withdraw, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Shoebridge, you are proceeding from the situation with Julian Assange, where many representations have been made, including publicly, to suggesting that some— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young, do you wish to raise a point of order? Senator Hanson-Young I0U President, could Senator Wong address the answer to the question through the chair and not directly to individual senators, please? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Shoebridge is creating some hypothetical about an Australian journalist in Australia being extradited to the United States. There is no such case of which I'm aware, and what I would say to you— Senator WONG 00AOU No, from Australia. But they can't have it both ways: they don't want me to look at them, but they're happy to yell at me. Which one do you want, Senator Hanson-Young? Do you want the blokes to be able to yell, or do you want me to address them through the chair? Senator McKim JKM Question time is when you answer the questions! Senator WONG 00AOU I'm happy to continue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, I have Senator Shoebridge on his feet. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! I have a senator on his feet. Senator Shoebridge, a point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 I'd ask you to draw the minister to her task in question time, which is to answer questions, not ask them. Her behaviour is out of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is answering the question. Minister. Senator WONG 00AOU We always advocate for Australian citizens and Australian journalists, and you would have seen that from the actions we have taken since we've been in government. (Time expired) Economy 23 14:23 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In May 2022, the monthly rate of inflation was 6.1 per cent, and last month it was recorded at 3.4 per cent. Since taking office, the Albanese Labor government has had a consistent focus on reducing inflation and providing targeted relief from the cost-of-living pressures faced by Australians. Minister, how have the measures delivered by the government to date helped to provide cost-of-living relief while not feeding inflation? What economic headwinds continue to persist which the government is factoring in ahead of the May budget? 14:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Polley for the question and for her interest in the upcoming budget. It's an important part of the parliamentary year. The Treasurer has said, and I think those of us on this side understand, that, whilst we're making welcome and encouraging progress against inflation, our fight against it continues and we recognise that people remain under pressure. Quarterly inflation is now around a third of the 2.1 per cent it was when we came to government in May 2022. This is incredibly welcome progress in the time that we've been in government. As you identified in your question, Senator Polley, monthly inflation is much lower now than what we saw at the election. We will have new monthly inflation numbers tomorrow, but the downward direction of these numbers is clear. The ABS also made it clear in the data that they have released that our policies on rents and electricity and our investments in early childhood education have directly reduced inflation by half a percentage point. This goes to the point we've been making about fiscal and monetary policy working together to put downward pressure on inflation. The IMF and the OECD have recognised our inflation-fighting efforts too, and the RBA has confirmed that fiscal and monetary policy are working in the same direction. Real wages are now growing for the first time in nearly three years and ahead of the forecast. They were going backwards by 3.4 per cent at the time of the election. This means that Australians are earning more, and from 1 July our tax cuts mean that they will keep more of what they earn too. Of course, we're doing a range of other investments on top of the tax cuts, whether it be energy bill relief, making medicines cheaper, making it easier to see a doctor, cheaper child care, building more social and affordable housing, and fee-free rent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Polley, first supplementary? 14:26 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Thank you, Minister, for that good news. Labor's tax cuts will roll out from 1 July this year and form the centrepiece of this government's cost-of-living relief package. Why is it so important that Australians keep more of what they earn, and why did the government take the decision to provide support to all taxpayers, not just some? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I just want to correct the record, because I meant 'fee-free TAFE' at the end of my previous answer. There are just so many measures that we're doing to alleviate cost-of-living pressures, and rent assistance was another one of those, but I put the two together. The previous government had a policy of keeping wages low. We've taken a different approach, and you saw that during the election campaign, with the Prime Minister leading the way on making sure we were arguing for wage increases for the lowest paid workers. Now, with our tax changes, all Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut because we want all Australians to keep more of what they earn. Labor's tax cuts will be a centrepiece of the May budget, and, of course, we are in a position to provide these tax cuts because of the careful economic management that we have undertaken. I'm proud today of the hard work that we've done. I know those opposite hate it, but gross debt is lower than when the Liberals were in charge, real spending growth is lower and inflation is lower. We've delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years and wages are higher. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, second supplementary? 14:27 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Thank you, Minister. You and the Treasurer are working hard to finalise the upcoming May budget, so we thank you for your hard work. I understand that it will be a budget that balances the fight against inflation— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Senator Polley, resume your seat. Order across the chamber. Order! Order! Interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Senator Polley, the last I heard was 'budget'. Would you like to repeat from there, thank you. Senator POLLEY e5x I understand it will be a budget that balances the fight against inflation with a need to gear our economy for growth. Why is it crucial that we make the necessary investments and drive growth in the economy and create more jobs for Australians, unlike those opposite? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Polley for that very good question. These are the issues before the ERC, and I do note that the only way to wake up the opposition is to say something nice about what's happening or something good about the economy. All of a sudden, awake they go. Whoa! I haven't heard a peep out of them, and then, whoa, they're awake! They just can't bear it, can they? Gross debt lower, real spending growth lower, inflation lower, the first surplus in 15 years, wage growth higher, jobs growth higher—that really gets them going. Labor is the party of good economic management. Our record proves this— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING There we go! There we go! They are awake, President! We thought they were all asleep, but they really were awake. These are all the issues that we are focusing on in putting the budget together. Our budget will be a budget for the times. It'll have those tax cuts getting to every taxpayer, and we'll look at other sensible investments where it's affordable and we're able to do so. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Ciccone, it is not appropriate to bang the desk. Community Services 25 14:29 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the government has spoken at length about cost-of-living issues facing Australians, but our frontline community organisations, from food pantries to community women's legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, family and domestic violence services and housing advocacy bodies, are bearing the brunt of this cost-of-living crisis. They are seeing skyrocketing demand for their services. These are services that not only provide life-saving and life-changing support for people but also save the government money through early intervention and diversion from the criminal justice system or helping women get out of violent relationships. The same organisations are saying that they are extremely stressed about their funding. It's about to fall off a cliff. Will the government commit to renewing funding for essential frontline community services in the next federal budget? 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pocock for the question and for his interest in this area. This is an area of priority for the government. When I came in as finance minister, we did an assessment of the indexation arrangements that existed for community organisations. They'd been inadequately indexed for a substantial period of time. In the last budget, the most significant investment was made in the community sector to deal with the ability to meet wage increases and other costs. Minister Rishworth has also provided additional investment into the wellbeing and capability grants program, which goes directly to some of those emergency providers of food relief. We will continue to work with the community sector. I have a good relationship with ACOSS and other peaks, which I meet with pretty regularly, as do other ministers, about prioritising further investments. I am aware of the community legal services issues. Again, they have been operating on very low funding for the work that they do for some time. The Attorney has held a review into that. That work is before government. We absolutely see our role with the community sector as a partnership and work closely with them. In terms of the funding, some of those grants are time limited. Some of them go through a procurement process. So, on your question about committing to funding, I'm not in a position to do that today. But our focus has been on extra support for the community organisations through direct engagement with them, and that's the way we will continue to engage with them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator David Pocock, a first supplementary? 14:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, the government's been prepared to make plenty of funding commitments already before the budget on a whole range of other things, whether it's $4.6 billion for Rolls-Royce or $40 million to advertise and sell the stage 3 tax cuts. Why won't you commit to ongoing funding for community legal services and food banks? What have they got to do? They are helping so many Australians, yet you can't actually make a commitment to fund them. 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think I answered that. If there's a procurement process underway, ministers do not get involved in that. Where community organisations have long and ongoing funding arrangements, we have not been focused on not renewing those or any other process. I'm not really sure about what you mean about not committing to funding. We've been working in partnership with them and will continue to do so. We've made extra investments—billions of dollars in the indexation arrangements that went to community organisations. I have had pretty positive feedback around that. It's allowing them to pay adequate wages to their workers now that they are getting properly indexed. Those indexation arrangements will continue. Probably the single biggest investment made in the community sector in more than a decade has been that commitment we made in the last budget. On the other point, governments have to do a range of things. We have to look after our national security. We have to look after the community sector. We have to look after the health system. That's what budgets are all about. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, going to your point about indexation, in terms of funding that the women's legal centres receive under the NLAP agreement, there is indexation of 1.6 per cent this financial year. The cost of employing a mid-level solicitor has jumped by 27 per cent. How are they meant to provide Australians in need with services? The government crows about indexation of 1.6 per cent while the services' costs are going through the roof. 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Under the NLAP, they are not covered by the indexation arrangements that we addressed in the last budget. That is because it's under this other partnership agreement. I am aware of that agreement, and I've been talking with the Attorney. It's work that is before the government. Unfortunately those opposite believed that indexation arrangements of one per cent or 1.2 per cent—if you worked in the APS, you got a wage increase of about 1.2 per cent on average over the last decade—was an adequate way to index. Senator GALLAGHER ING It was lower than inflation, Senator Ruston. It was much lower than inflation—1.2 per cent per annum is much lower than inflation. So there was inadequate indexation. There was a reluctance to fund community services properly. We are methodically working through all of those issues and addressing them at every budget, and we have been working in partnership with the community sector on that. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 26 14:36 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. The Paris Agreement's central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change. It is imperative that Australia's commitments and policies align with these goals. A watered-down new vehicle emissions standard will have significant implications for Australia's ability to meet these targets. Today we read that Minister King and Minister Bowen will be unveiling a softened new vehicle efficiency standard. The original standard had a goal of 60 per cent reduction of new-car emissions by 2029. Is the minister able to specify the revised emission reduction target for new vehicles by the year 2030? 14:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate the question. You are certainly correct in outlining the way in which a trajectory to net zero requires a contribution from all parts of the economy—and I, if I may, congratulate you on actually dealing with the reality of the policy challenge that the country faces and the economic transition the country faces, which is in stark contrast to what occurred under the previous government over nine years. It is true that when there is less abatement from one sector it does require more abatement from another sector. Having said that, the ministers have obviously had to take into account the engagement with industry and stakeholder representatives in making the decision about some revisions or amendments to the policy which was proposed. I understand, although I wasn't able to see it, that the ministers did announce that prior to question time and that that included recategorising some four-wheel drives from passenger to light commercial vehicle; smoothing the emissions trajectory for light commercial vehicles, which reflects the adjustments announced by the United States to its vehicle standards—smoothing the transition for utes, vans and others; adjusting emissions limits; and staging implementation in partnership with industry. The standard will commence in January 2025, but manufacturers will not begin earning credits or penalties until after 1 July 2025. You asked a very good question about the data as to projected abatement as a consequence of this decision compared to the previous standard. I don't have that information in the brief that's been provided to me, but it's a reasonable question. I'll take advice on it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, first supplementary? 14:39 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria The minister might need to take advice on this question as well. How do the adjustments to the NVES compare to the old one? How does the new one compare to the old one? You may want to take that on notice. 14:39 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I can go through what was said publicly about some of the changes. As I said, there was a lot of discussion about four-wheel drives. There was a recategorisation of a limited number of four-wheel drives from passenger car to light commercial vehicle. This includes models such as the LandCruiser and the Nissan Patrol. This acknowledges that some offroad wagons use similar ladder-frame chassis and have towing capacity of three tonnes, comparable to dual-cab utes. There's a smoothing of the emissions trajectory for light commercial vehicles. As you might recall, I think it was yesterday that I was asked by Senator McKenzie about the changes to the US's EPA vehicle standard. The change reflects that. There was an adjustment to the weight based relative emissions limits, which is known as the break point, which recognises that heavier vehicles emit more, and there was staged implementation. The cumulative abatement, I am advised in the fact sheet, is 20 million tonnes to 2030 and 80 million to 2035. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, second supplementary? 14:40 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Considering the urgency of addressing climate change and the role of diplomatic leadership in fostering international collaboration, how does the government anticipate the adjustments to the MVES will reflect Australia's diplomatic relations—specifically concerning our Pacific island neighbours and other nations that are exceedingly susceptible to the impacts of climate change? 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It is true that climate change is the first priority of Pacific island nations. I had the opportunity today to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister of Vanuatu, and that was a point he again made. You're right to identify it as an issue. There's no change to our overall target. What we're looking at is how each sector can contribute to the targets we have announced and to targets that we will be announcing down the track in accordance with the Paris Agreement. What I would say is this model will deliver $95 billion in fuel savings to Australians by 2050. It will deliver more choice of low- and zero-emissions vehicles. It will deliver cumulative abatement of, as I said, 20 million tons to 2030, 80 million tons to 2035 and 321 million tonnes by 2050. It will reduce emissions intensity for new Australian— (Time expired) Legal Aid 27 14:42 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services funding is still stretched to breaking point. There are just 15 months to go until the current funding agreement expires. First Nations legal staff advised the government about needing $229 million in emergency funding to address staff recruitment, retention and urgent capital works. Will the government deliver this funding in the May budget? 14:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Thorpe. Obviously, I'm not in a position to disclose announcements that the government may make in the context of this year's budget. Sitting this close to the Minister for Finance, it would be very dangerous to reveal those kinds of things! But certainly the government does acknowledge that there are some very real issues around legal aid funding, including to Aboriginal legal services in the way that you've described. As I understand it, the Attorney-General has commenced a review surrounding these issues. No doubt, once that review is completed, he will be in a position to say more about that, but what we are doing in the meantime is fulfilling an election commitment by designing and implementing the National Justice Reinvestment Program, which will provide $79 million to support community-led justice reinvestment initiatives. The government opened applications for the National Justice Reinvestment Program and the Justice Reinvestment in Central Australia Program in September 2023. In the first cycle— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 The point of order is on relevance. I wasn't asking about the non-reinvestment of the reinvestment, because it's not reinvestment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you need to make your point of order. Senator Thorpe 280304 Can we stick to what the question is? That is: are you going to fund these legal services, or are you just going to talk the crap that you always do? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, withdraw that comment, please. Senator Thorpe 280304 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant. He has spoken about the budget. I'll give him the call again. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Thorpe, I have answered your questions by saying that we're not in a position to describe what will be included in this year's budget, whether it be in this space or any other space. We understand there are some very real issues in this area, and that is why we are undertaking this action. In the first cycle of the Justice Reinvestment Program, nine initiatives have been selected for funding, and applications remain open year-round. We are clearly committed to this by having already put in place $79 million to support those community-led justice reinvestment initiatives. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The Attorney-General commissioned an independent review, as you say, of the National Legal Assistance Partnership, which he received several weeks ago but has not published, despite calls from stakeholders and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service. Why is the government withholding vital information from the sector that they are supposed to be working in genuine partnership with? What are you hiding? 14:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't think it is fair to accuse the Attorney-General of hiding a report that he only received three weeks ago. It's understandable that he and the government more broadly would take a little bit of time to consider the recommendations of that review before either releasing it or announcing what our response to that review will be. The Albanese government recognises the pressures that these services are under, and we also recognise the importance of strengthening the legal assistance sector. We recognise that legal assistance is essential to ensuring access to justice and equality before the law for all Australians, including our First Australians. That's exactly why the Attorney-General commissioned the review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership between the Commonwealth and all states and territories. This review report was received on 5 March, and it's now being considered by federal, state and territory attorneys-general. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:46 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria That's not a partnership. Will the government commit to releasing the report before the end of this week to show that they are willing to work in genuine partnership, not just pay lip service, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services? 14:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's obviously a matter for the Attorney-General to determine whether he will release this report and, if so, when that will occur. I'm not going to commit another minister to releasing a report by the end of this week, but the mere fact the Attorney-General has commissioned this independent review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership shows good faith on his part and shows that the Albanese government understands the pressures that Aboriginal legal services are under. If my recollection serves me correctly, the Attorney-General himself has worked in Aboriginal legal services in the past. Senator Thorpe 280304 Cry me a river! Senator WATT 245759 Well, I think that's actually— Senator Thorpe 280304 Has he got an Aboriginal friend too? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, order. Senator WATT 245759 I think the fact the Attorney-General has taken the time in his career to work in Aboriginal legal services does demonstrate that he believes in them and supports them, and that's the practice he's continuing now as the Commonwealth Attorney-General. Senator Thorpe 280304 You're not our friends. You're killing us. Shame on you. Wages 28 14:48 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Since taking office, the Albanese Labor government has been focused on getting wages moving and easing cost-of-living pressures—in contrast to those opposite, who support a race to the bottom on wages. How is the government's approach to the Fair Work Commission's annual wage review helping ensure Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn? 14:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As you may have noticed, there is no limit to how many times we will talk about the actions of the Albanese government to ensure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. This is something that opposition senators are going to need to get used to for the remainder of this term. We are going to talk about it over and over again because it's something so many Australians are looking forward to. To help Australians earn more, the Albanese Labor government has consistently backed low-paid workers through the annual wage reviews in 2022, 2023 and now in 2024. What a contrast to the nearly 10 years of coalition government that we had, with a government that refused to actively engage itself in the Fair Work Commission's decisions about the minimum wage. It's no wonder, therefore, that we saw wage suppression in this country, especially for low-paid workers, for the nearly 10 years they were in office. It is a good thing that now, under a Labor government—the Albanese Labor government—we have a government that is prepared to roll its sleeves up, put forward submissions and put forward an argument to the Fair Work Commission, as we have done each year since we have been in office. As a result of that action, the minimum wage for a full-time worker in Australia is now $110 higher than when we came to office. We understand that low paid workers, more than anyone in our community, are feeling the pinch from cost-of-living pressures. How much worse off would they be if we hadn't taken the action that we took to support a wage rise for the minimum wage? That is now bearing fruit, with people receiving $110 more than what they were receiving when we took office. And they don't like it. They don't like a government getting involved and fighting for fairer wages for workers. The same approach that we've taken this year, a submission to the Fair Work Commission, that the wages— Senator Rennick 283596 On a point of order, President: can the senator please clarify. Is that $110 per week, fortnight or year? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. Senator Rennick 283596 I just want to know— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 It is an unfortunate thing to have been a senator for nearly five years and only get a chance to speak when he interjects. Senator Rennick never gets to ask a question; he only ever interjects. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you for that answer, Minister. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber. I have Senator Stewart on her feet. Senator, please ask your first supplementary. Senator STEWART 299352 Thank you, Minister, for that response. Given that the Liberals and Nationals have suggested that asking for a real pay rise for low paid workers is just window-dressing, why is the Albanese Labor government fighting for a pay rise for low paid workers? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Stewart. Well, it's pretty straightforward. The Albanese Labor government is fighting for a pay rise for our low paid workers because it's the right thing to do for people who have been hit hardest by the rising cost of living. But it is becoming increasingly clear with every passing day that the coalition have a different approach. Get this—talk about Sherlock Holmes!—Senator Hume told Sky News that the Labor government wants minimum wages to go higher as a cost-of-living measure. Senator Hume is onto us! She has worked it out! She has worked out that a Labor government wants minimum wages to go higher as a cost-of-living measure. Well done, Senator Hume. You might earn yourself a mug as a reward for working that out. We have also seen the member for New England, Mr Joyce, who, in his latest comeback tour to become the leader of the rabble of the National Party, is out there every week telling Sunrise that arguing for a real pay increase for low paid workers is 'window-dressing'. We know that's the way to get votes in the National Party room— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary. 14:52 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that response. I note that the Liberals and Nationals have committed to a targeted repeal of the government's workplace relations reforms to restore the low-wage economic settings that they support. How have the Albanese Labor government's decisions and actions helped reverse the pattern of wage stagnation, while getting more Australians into jobs? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Stewart. Our government is fighting every day to ensure Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. I reckon by the end of this term we can have coalition senators saying that. Repeat after me, coalition senators: 'The Labor government will ensure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn.' It's pretty straightforward. We know you believe it because you voted for our tax cuts. So you must agree that a Labor government delivers Australians the ability to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Of course, we remember Senator Cash—and I haven't mentioned her in question time for a while, so let's give her another go. She said that our measures would 'close down Australia' by letting Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. We had the member for Banks say that the secure jobs bill was 'a grotesque piece of legislation'. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Gallagher. Senator Gallagher ING I'm sitting next to the minister and I cannot hear his answer. I just ask that those opposite stop interjecting. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Thank you, Senator Gallagher. I'm trying my very best to keep order in the chamber. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 I'll just have to turn up the volume, I guess! The shadow Treasurer has now also confirmed that they will take a targeted package of repeals to the next election. Every Australian worker has a target on their back under the coalition. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Watt. International Relations: Australia and the United States of America 30 14:54 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Earlier today, some of Australia's allies publicly called out the Chinese Communist Party for malicious cyberactivity attributed to groups sponsored by the Chinese government targeting democratic institutions. In response, the UK and the US sanctioned a front company and two individuals who are complicit in this behaviour. The United States government also revealed that thousands of American citizens have been targeted in a prolific hacking operation for which seven Chinese individuals face charges. What action has the Australian government taken in support of our allies who have been subject to these cyberattacks? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm a little confused—I shouldn't say that, because then somebody over there will say something rude. I am bemused by your question because it suggests that we haven't done anything. I would have thought, given how much of an avid follower of these matters you are, you would have seen that we did take the unusual step of issuing a public statement. As, from me— Senator Ruston 243273 We just asked what you've done. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Ruston, you really have difficulty listening to me, don't you? I'm sorry, but that is my job. I'm supposed to answer the question. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber. Senator Fawcett has asked a serious question, which Senator Wong was answering. Interjections across the chamber or indeed to Senator Wong when she's answering the question are disorderly. I would ask all senators to allow Senator Wong to focus on the question that was asked and to listen in silence. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you, President. It is a serious issue, and Senator Fawcett would know that there have not been many occasions on which the foreign minister of Australia and the home affairs minister have issued an attribution in relation to cyber that names the particular entities or country concerned. And we did so. We did so, obviously in consultation with our friends in the United Kingdom and other members of the Five Eyes. We did so because it is important, when it comes particularly to China state backed actors targeting democratic institutions and parliamentarians, that we do make clear that this is a line for all of us, that our resilience and our sovereignty do require respect for our democratic institutions. So you would have seen, I hope, what we said, which was: The Australian Government joins the United Kingdom and other international partners in expressing serious concerns about malicious cyber activities by China state-backed actors targeting UK democratic institutions and parliamentarians. The persistent targeting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Fawcett, your first supplementary? 14:58 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Minister, I do welcome the government's willingness to join in that attribution, which is important in preserving democracies. But my supplementary question is: will the minister now commit to using the powers under Australia's Magnitsky-style thematic sanctions regime to stand with our allies in sanctioning those individuals responsible for this behaviour? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would make the point that sanctions—firstly, we don't discuss or telegraph any consideration of sanctions in any circumstances. The second point I would make—and I appreciate that, in opposition, you are free to take a different view—is that I think governments have to always think very carefully about what is the appropriate measure to take in relation to situations of international concern. There are occasions where sanctions are imposed. They are rarely our first choice. They should be used judiciously, and they are usually used in conjunction with other response measures. What I would say to you, Senator, is that all of us here are united in our belief that any government of Australia and parliament of Australia should always ensure we protect our democratic institutions. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett? 15:00 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Thank you, Minister. Again, welcoming the commitment of Australia to recognise or make that attribution, how does the Australian government respond to the denials from Beijing which reject the validity of these attributions? 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I simply repeat the statement that was issued this morning by the home affairs minister and me. What I would also say to you—and I think it is important, given I've been asked about this, to make it clear to the chamber—is that the advice is that Australia's electoral systems were not compromised by the cyber campaigns targeting the United Kingdom. The Australian Annual cyber threat report illustrates that both state and non-state actors continue to ensure intent and capability to compromise Australian networks. The Cyber Security Strategy has outlined how the Australian government will protect essential government citizens and ensure our citizens and businesses are better protected from cyber threats. All of us should ensure our cybersecurity systems are hardened and resilient, and we will continue to brief parliamentarians and provide advice on cyber and security matters, including protecting your personal data and mitigating cyber threats. With that, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. BILLS 31 BILLS Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 31

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Reference to Committee 31 15:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to a direction to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee as circulated in the chamber. Leave not granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to a direction to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The motion that I move seeks to direct the Senate and have the Senate direct the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to hold a public hearing today of not less than two hours duration for the purpose of hearing from officials from the Department of Home Affairs regarding the details of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The coalition moves this motion in an attempt to strike a responsible balance. We have today been presented with legislation, as has the parliament, by the government. We had not seen this legislation prior to today. At 7.30 am, it was provided to the opposition. We were told there would be a briefing at 8 am. That was a short briefing. During that time, we discovered that the bill had a time and date on it of last Friday, despite only being provided to the opposition today. But, nonetheless, the government has said to us that they believe it is imperative this legislation pass this parliament, they said, today, or at least this week. We wish to test the government's propositions in terms of the validity of their legislation and in terms of the necessity of the time frame that they have presented for the passage of this legislation; hence we have taken the unusual step of presenting this motion that will provide for a proper hearing, a public hearing, a transparent hearing, with the Department of Home Affairs to take place today to scrutinise the legislation and to scrutinise the proposition of the government that it needs to pass the parliament this week. Of course we would have much preferred this legislation if it was ready last Friday—as appears to have been the case, based on the date stamp upon it—to have been provided to the parliament at an earlier juncture, so there could have been a more fulsome, thorough and normal parliamentary inquiry taking place. I know that those elsewhere around the chamber will variously move amendments, seeking to have what would be a more normal inquiry in relation to this bill. We understand their intent. We understand their desire. That would be the preference, were it not the second-to-last sitting day of this parliamentary session and the last sitting week prior to significant legal determinations likely to be handed down, in relation to which the government may wish to use measures in this legislation. That's why we seek to take the responsible and balanced approach from the opposition's perspective to give this bill the scrutiny that we can and to do so in the open, public, accountable and transparent place of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to inform the deliberations that we and all senators can bring to bear tomorrow. We've of course structured this in such a way that, if the Senate comes to a conclusion to not give passage to this legislation tomorrow, it could be subject to a more fulsome and normal inquiry over the weeks that follow. However, given the importance the government claims to place on having this legislation passed in the national interest in such a short period of time, we have sought to provide for at least the opportunity for the coalition and the opposition to reassure ourselves of the merits of the government's arguments, the merits of the government's legislation and the proposition put by the government that this needs to be passed. If reassured satisfactorily of those matters, subject to amendments, potentially, or otherwise, then it could pass this week in keeping with the government's claims. If we are not assured or convinced, as I said, there is the opportunity for the Senate to either reject it outright or to subject it to a normal passage of full committee scrutiny. I'd invite those on the crossbench, even those who have a preference for a full committee inquiry, to recognise that this is a good faith attempt in terms of trying to deal across the aisle between the opposition and the government to give the Senate the chance for scrutiny and that it doesn't prejudge the possibility of further consideration by the committee and, of course, by this chamber. (Time expired) 15:07 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put.    

The Senate divided. [15:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 13 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:15 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham to suspend standing orders be agreed to.    

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

 31 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 13 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:17 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That a motion relating to a direction to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without debate. 15:17 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ayres that the procedural motion be put be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:20 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the procedural motion as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:21]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:23 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the Senate directs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to hold a public hearing on 26 March 2024, of not less than two hours, for the purposes of hearing from officials from the Department of Home Affairs regarding the details of the Migration Amendment (Removals and Other Measures) Bill 2024. 15:23 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move the amendment circulated in my name to the motion of Senator Birmingham: Omit all words after "That", substitute 'the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2024". I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Consistent with the contingent notice circulated in Senator Waters's name, I move: That so much of sessional and standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a short contribution. It's good to finally be able to speak on this now that the stitch-up is in between Labor and the coalition. It is a stitch-up again in this denial of democracy, this rush to be as cruel as you can as quickly as you can. Sometimes we look in this place and we think, 'Well, maybe Labor's slightly less crap on asylum seekers'— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, withdraw. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I withdraw. We think that maybe Labor is slightly less woeful and despicable than the coalition when it comes to dealing with people seeking asylum, but then Labor can always surprise us. No matter how far the coalition goes to the right on refugees and asylum seekers, no matter how far they drag Labor to the right, Labor always seems willing to match them. But today we actually see Labor trying to outflank the coalition on cruelty and to go even further to the right than the coalition ever conceived of doing. That's what this bill is. This is Labor engaged in a process of trying to outflank the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, on cruelty to asylum seekers. I've got to tell you, that's a race Labor can never win, because the coalition will always be willing to go one further offensive step beyond that. So this sham inquiry that you're agreeing to for two hours tonight, during Senator Rice's valedictory speech, as disrespectful as that is—be disrespectful to senators, by all means—is disrespectful to the rule of law. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, I remind you that you have moved a contingent motion, so your debate should at least be framed around the issue of suspending the standing orders that would prevent you from making a statement. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Why is this urgent? This is urgent because, unless we stop this now, this ugly rush to the right of cruelty will just be a continuing play. This is urgent because the coalition and Labor are doing a stitch-up job on legislation that's still warm from the photocopiers, and the only reason they're agreeing to it is that it's brutal and cruel to refugees and asylum seekers. This is urgent because it is essential that we try to turn this chamber and this parliament around and finally have a shred of decency. This is urgent because when will Labor stop? What is the length to which Labor will go in order to try to outflank the coalition on being cruel to refugees and asylum seekers? Today we're getting a sense that there is no limit for the Albanese Labor government as to how brutally cruel they'll be to refugees in this race to the bottom against the coalition. This is urgent because where does it stop? Trying to outflank Peter Dutton on cruelty to asylum seekers is a no-win for Labor, for this chamber and for our country. We heard the opposition say today that this motion is going to provide a transparent hearing to scrutinise the government's legislation. How are we going to hear from NGOs and from critical stakeholders in this space to seriously scrutinise around 100 pages of legislation and explanatory memorandum in a sham inquiry that you're trying to ram through in two hours tonight? That's about as transparent as a brick. This is yet another example of how, when it comes to being cruel to people seeking asylum, the coalition and Labor just tip their brains out, tip their hearts out, and then just run this ugly race on unfairness and cruelty. This is urgent because we shouldn't be saying to the Australian public that the parliament thinks that a sham two-hour inquiry on legislation that's still warm from the photocopier is in any way doing our job of scrutinising legislation. We know what's going to happen. Labor is going to stuff it up again—have it full of legal error, have it challenged in the High Court and then, when it all starts unravelling again, the coalition is going to say, 'Oh, Labor is hopeless and incompetent and terrible'. And they are probably right. Then we're going to have this whole sham process over again. This is an ongoing process of cruelty, let's be clear. This is months and months and months of ongoing cruelty, as Labor keep chasing the coalition to the right with this ugly politics. As Greens senators, as Greens representatives, we say no to that, and we are saying no to that here. 15:31 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Ayres that the question be put be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:38 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Shoebridge to suspend be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:38]
(The President—Senator Lines)

13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

15:41 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:41]
(The President—Senator Lines)

13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

15:43 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move an amendment to Senator Birmingham's motion in the following terms: Omit all words after "That", substitute: (a) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 May 2024; and (b) for the purposes of the inquiry, the Senate directs the Committee to hold at least one public hearing of not less than 5 hours. I seek leave to make a two-minute statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for two minutes. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 We've seen again a worrying lack of process from the Labor government. Senator Scarr talked earlier about the legislation being stamped on Friday. It's Tuesday morning; we get a quick look at it, and they want to ram it through with the coalition's support. Despite protesting, they're happy just to sign this off. We saw the criticisms, when it comes to human rights, of the last legislation that was rushed through this place. You'd think we'd learn from it as a parliament. The way the government has treated the lower house Independents today is disgraceful. It's totally disgraceful to not allow them to say anything, to gag debate and to not even allow them to move amendments to this bill. We were promised so much by the Labor government and this is what we're getting: this lack of process and lack of transparency. I thought Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi, summed it up when she said: 'If this is the best form of democracy Labor can give us, then I am sorely disappointed and I'm sure my constituents are too. Australians should be worried.' The contents of this bill aside—I'm not across it yet; we were given a hundred pages this morning—in terms of process, this should absolutely go through the Senate committee process. As Senator Shoebridge pointed out, we are dealing with human beings here. This has a material impact on people like you and me who have hopes and dreams. We should ensure that the laws we make have been well thought out and scrutinised, and then decide that, yes, this weighs human rights with community safety. It's so disappointing to see the Labor government doing this after all that they promised us. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 15:49 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the motion as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:49]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 30 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 38 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 38 15:51 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by the coalition today. Coming into this place many moons ago we had question time. The answers were there—there were not many in the gallery there. Minister Wong is a very serious person. I take her answers seriously. I take her actions seriously. I note she was asked two very clear questions, they were the first two questions today, by Senator McKenzie: Can we guarantee that no Australian car will cost more because of the changes to the taxation regime on SUVs and emission standards? Can we guarantee the same choice? Because Senator Wong respects this place, because she takes things seriously, I note she didn't give a fluff answer but she didn't answer those questions, because she can't. There are no guarantees able to be given about what happens to the car industry across Australia. Instead, the answer given was she could guarantee more Australians more choice. Is that more choice amongst the 64 per cent of EVs that are built by China? Is that more choice amongst all of the EVs that can't be built without components from China? Or is that more choice of the cars we don't yet have and won't be able to build for up to five years in countries that aren't controlled by China, which has 80 per cent of the cathode industry? She said there was no guarantee of loss of choice of vehicles because we give people the cars they want. I notice if you go out and try to buy a hybrid RAV4 you're waiting approximately eight to 12 months because that is a car people want. It is available now. It is viable now. I note that the car I want, a Ford Explorer, which I ordered in September 2022, landed in Australia on 21 March, just last week. It has taken almost 20 months to get here because that is the car people want. People can get the cars they want now. People can choose the cars they want. If they want EVs, they can buy EVs. We have the Dolphin, a BYD car—the cheapest around. This is nothing more than a tax. This is a tax on the tradies who need utes. You can't put all of your tilt trays, all of your tools, all of your cement mixers in the back of your Toyota Corolla. You can't put them in the back of your Tesla model Y. If you want to get a Tesla Cybertruck, that's fine but you need about 250 grand to buy the Tesla Cybertruck in the first place. So what are we doing? We're taxing the cars that make Australia work. We're taxing the vehicles that let Australia get the job done and build a better tomorrow. Why are we doing this? Because it is another opportunity to put levies on people and to get them to drive what the government wants them to drive, own what the government wants them to own and do what the government wants them to do. As part of this new transparent wonderful government, we asked to see the modelling used to grant this. There was even a question asked by somebody else. The original modelling said there would be about a 60 per cent reduction by 2029. Can we have the new modelling under the new watered-down agreement? No, we can't even get that. We can't even get what the goals of this policy are now it has been watered down. Remember, every group that consulted on this—all the manufacturers, the vehicle bodies, everyone—had to sign non-disclosure agreements. So they can't tell the people of Australia, the parliament of Australia or anyone the effect it will have, because their hands are tied and their throats are gagged from saying what will happen to Australia. I noticed, in answer to a different question about housing from Senator Bragg, Senator Gallagher stated, 'We are proud of setting a target.' Labor are never going to achieve a target, but they are proud of setting one. It is like reading books from Jeffrey Archer—'Oh, the stars. How great they are. We may never reach them but how better we are for having them there.' 'Let's set a target and then forget about it' is what Labor are telling us. But they won't tell us the target on EVs now they have watered down their policy. They say, 'We're going to do something. We're not going to tell you what we're going to do or how much it's going to cost, but we're going to tell Australians what to drive.' What a great policy! This is what we are all about here. This is the new clear, beautiful, transparent government: 'Do what we tell you but don't ask us to tell you what we're doing.' I note those questions. I note that this will cause higher prices for cars in Australia, not lower prices for fuel. 15:56 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The coalition were wrong to abandon their own policy in 2016 and are wrong to engage today in a pathetic scare campaign against a policy they embraced and promoted just a few years ago. Do you know how much Australians have wasted, in the time that those opposite have backflipped on their own policy? Around $4 billion. Australians have wasted around $4 billion on fuel because the Liberal Party did not have the courage to stick to a policy that they knew was right. The fuel bill on that inaction is stacking up every single day and Australians are paying the price. Mr Dutton should explain why he is spending more time spreading disinformation for the sake of it than finding a tangible and practical solution for long-term cost-of-living relief. While those opposite are out there running scare campaigns, the Albanese Labor government is doing something practical and tangible. It is pushing for wage rises to help the country's lowest-paid workers battle cost-of-living pressures. The coalition of chaos is distracted with taking Australia backwards by more than 70 years with its antiworker agenda and wanting Australians to work more but get less in their pockets. Our government knows that low-paid workers are disproportionately affected by inflation and that the minimum wage is an important tool to counter this. It is not just window dressing. This is why our submission to the Fair Work Commission is pushing for a minimum wage increase to keep pace with inflation. Our tax cuts in July should be in addition to wage increases, not a substitute. We're taking the pressure off workers and family budgets right when Australians need it most. Those opposite just want to create more chaos, and they expect people to work more and earn less. What a shame. Thanks to the Albanese Labor government's steadfast commitment to delivering meaningful cost-of-living relief for everyday Australians, families and Easter bunnies participating in Easter this weekend can take home more in their Easter baskets. Since Labor took office, this government has delivered billions in targeted and responsible cost-of-living relief: electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines, boosts in income support payments and fee-free TAFE training. We're building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and paying super on paid parental leave too. But that is not all we're delivering this Easter. From 1 July 2024, every Australian will receive a tax cut. Labor's tax cuts deliver more relief to more people in a way that is fiscally responsible and does not add to inflationary pressures. We want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn, and our bigger tax cuts for more taxpayers will make that happen. The average taxpayer earning around $73,000 will now get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year. That's around $29 a week. Australia's essential workers, such as nurses, teachers and truckies, are some of the most likely to benefit, with more than 95 per cent of those taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut under Labor. Thanks to Labor, working parents—particularly women with young children—will now be meaningfully supported in their return to work. Under our changes, parents earning less than $45,000 will now receive a tax cut. This will significantly boost the take-home pay of Australians on modest incomes and people working part time. Our tax cuts are good for Middle Australia, good for women, good for helping with cost-of-living pressures, good for labour supply and good for the Easter Bunny this weekend. While we've secured a tax cut for every taxpayer, Peter Dutton and the Liberals argued against cost-of-living relief. They're interested only in running pointless scare campaigns. Labor's tax cuts will make a real difference for 13.6 million taxpayers who will receive a cut—nearly three million more people than would have benefited from Scott Morrison's plan just five years ago. We're delivering more tax cuts to more people. 16:01 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The answer in question time this afternoon from Senator Gallagher really did bell the cat and reveal the fact that Labor has no real interest in ever meeting its supply targets on housing. After almost two years of Labor, you would have to say that their housing policy has been one of their biggest failures. That is because Labor have shown no capacity to meet their own housing targets and because they've showed no creativity in trying to help Australians get into a first home. This whole issue of homeownership has been made so much more acute because of the recent data that shows 660,000 people coming into the country in the last year and only 170,000 houses being built. So, for every four people who come into the country, there is only one house built. That's a major problem. To make matters worse, all of Labor's policies to try to alleviate the housing disaster either have been stalled in this parliament or have already failed. The HAFF is a $10 billion boondoggle which will be only a minor bandaid on a gaping wound. The Help to Buy scheme, which has already failed at most state levels, is jammed in this parliament for good reason. I agree with the Greens when they point out that the Help to Buy scheme is an absolute joke. No-one wants to use it at a state level, and most Australians don't want to see a politician or the government sitting around their dinner table when they go into the house that they own. The central problem here is that Labor has given up on homeownership. That is actually the problem; they've given up on it. The only solution is to have super funds own the houses. We're going to give them tax breaks. We're going to have foreign fund managers own the houses, and we'll also give them tax breaks. Then we're going to allow the government to own up to 40 per cent of the equity in your house. So it is a trifecta of giving up on people owning their own house, with the only solutions Labor is willing to countenance being big government, big super funds and foreign fund managers. That is why the issue of housing is getting worse, not better, in Australia. People feel that they will never get into a first home. The most troubling part of this debate, though, is that Labor will not even countenance thinking about allowing people to use their own money to buy a first home, for example. They don't like the idea of people using their own super, even if that might be their only pool of capital. For many Australians, particularly older millennials, absent the bank of mum and dad, which is now a major lender in Australia, using super may be their only shot at ever getting into that market. The key determinant of your success in retirement is not your super balance; it is your homeownership status. Labor don't seem to care about this fact. They would rather people be forced to save in super for 40 years, where you have to pay huge fees to the fund managers and where you also have to pay high interest to a bank if you ever get into the market. We are seeing that a large number of Australians are now getting to preservation age and they're using their super to retire their mortgage, so what was the point of super? Why force people to pay huge amounts of interest to a bank when they could've owned their own house faster? It is absolutely crazy. Labor has given up on homeownership, which is very regrettable for the Australian people, because we're stuck with this government for the short term. The Greens' policy, of course—which is probably less whacky—is that there should be a government property developer, and that should be allowed to build and then sell the houses. That is a Soviet-style approach. It is very interesting but is at least consistent. Then, of course, you have us in the Liberals and the Nationals. We are the only parties that want the people to own their houses. We don't want the super funds, the foreign fund managers or the government to own the houses; we want the people to own their houses, and we want people to be able to use their own money, including their own super, to own their own house. That is why we are committed to— Senator BRAGG 256063 I will take the interjections—it is why we are committed to seeing more supply, particularly in the cities. We know that you only solve this problem with a huge amount of construction. Therefore, the demonisation of the property sector by the Greens and Labor is just bizarre. These are the people and this is the sector that could actually solve the problem. They could build the houses we need in the cities so that our children have places to live. So it's pretty bizarre, and we thank Senator Gallagher for being honest today about Labor having no plan to solve the housing crisis. 16:06 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Senator Bragg, really? For the last decade, what did you guys do towards the housing supply? Absolutely nothing. And now you're joining the Greens to delay the progressive, ambitious plan we've got on the table. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Payman, I think I have a point of order to my left. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 Could you ask the senator to direct her comments through the chair, please? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Payman, concentrate on me. Senator PAYMAN 300707 Yes, Deputy President. I just couldn't help but refer to my friend on the other side. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I understand. Senator PAYMAN 300707 It's really interesting to hear from those opposite, who want Australians to raid their retirement funds for housing. They want to push up property prices so that people like me and many others out there who want to make a living and are struggling to put a roof over their heads don't have a plan. There are many Australians out there that I've spoken to—young people in particular. Can't they have a roof over their heads or be afforded a dignified retirement? It's very surprising to sit here and listen to them attack the ambitious housing reform that we have brought in in the two years that we've been in government, increasing the supply of homes and ensuring that we're working with the states and territories through the $3 billion investment of the New Homes Bonus, which will ensure that there's supply and that Australians, especially low- and middle-income earners, can afford the cost of a mortgage. As my good friend Senator Stewart highlighted, the cost-of-living measures that our government has taken ensure that we're helping Australians who are doing it tough. But, in saying that, there are cost-of-living pressures that come not just through housing; rather, there are fee-free TAFE courses that we heard the minister mention earlier. We know that in order to be able to supply more homes you need a workforce. That's why we have improved that supply by adding an additional 300,000 fee-free TAFE places from 2024 to 2026 for priority areas, which include construction. With the Labor Party, what I've noticed in the short time I've been here, is we identify a problem. When there is a problem and we want to address the problem, we do so by consulting with the experts in the field, and then we strive to deliver on what information we've received on the policies in order to ease and make life better for Australians out there. There is no scare campaign on our agenda that we thrive on, there is no spreading of disinformation and we're definitely not wasting time. That brings me to what Senator Cadell was taking note on earlier about the new vehicle efficiency standard. Something as simple as wanting to give Australians more choice of cars that are cleaner, cheaper and— Senator O'Sullivan 283585 They can just choose now. Senator PAYMAN 300707 I'll take that interjection. Allow me to remind the senators on the other side that it was your own policy back in 2016 to introduce a new vehicle efficiency standard and, during the Turnbull government, Senator Simon Birmingham said: The government intends to encourage more efficient vehicles, which will reduce fuel use and mean cheaper petrol bills for families in the future. Have we forgotten that? I wonder. Speaking of being able to choose the vehicle that is right for you and your family but having more options and having the ability to buy a car by 2028 that will save $5,710 over five years, as surprising as it may sound, it's good for the hip pocket and the environment. They're not mutually exclusive, and you can have one with the other. 16:12 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I've listened to all the contributions here this afternoon and I was most enlightened by the contributions of Senator Bragg, who rose to take note of an answer given by Senator Gallagher in relation to homeownership. What struck me most was Senator Bragg's observation, quite rightly, that the Labor government in this country have effectively given up on homeownership in this country. I think that's the takeaway line from this afternoon. I know we've heard a lot of good stuff in here, but that, to me, was the moment. In one sense it's fairly reminiscent of what we say on this side of the chamber about the Labor Party's approach to working people. We have the Labor Party over there, who are constantly telling us they're on the side of the battler. Every single day we hear that. They're on the side of the blue-collar worker—except all they do every day is make life harder for those people by trying to parrot their unachievable net zero fantasy, which is doing nothing but raising power prices, raising the cost of living and making life hard, but, as we know, keeping the dangerous emissions down for a country that produces just over one per cent of the world's emissions. That is probably off topic. We are seeing from this government now the supply of new homes in this country crashing to, I think, their lowest level in over a decade in the next couple of years. This is the convergence of two crises. It's the convergence of a number of policy levers that haven't been pulled—the emergency chain—by this government. One of them is, as Senator Bragg pointed out, the increase in immigration—the reckless immigration target. I think it's 600,000 we're likely to be up to in the year ending September. That's 600,000 people that have got to find homes, or less. Three hundred thousand homes or whatever the target is, it is more than this government has the ability to provide. That's at the same time that, as I said, the cost of living is increasing and, also, rental affordability is absolutely skyrocketing. Minister Gallagher, when she gave her answer today, this afternoon, in question time, did what we hear so frequently during question time, which was to simply obfuscate the answer by saying, 'We've set targets.' I've set a few targets in my life. I didn't actually set the target, but I would have loved to play a professional sport. But guess what? I didn't have a plan or the ability. But that's not the point. The point is that setting targets is no good unless you've got a plan to back it up. This government doesn't have a plan to back it up in terms of housing increase. It's just not there. None of the government's approaches to date have actually done anything, a bit like me practising kicking for goal—it didn't do anything; I kept spraying them around all over the place. The same is true here. We've seen example after example of that. The Help to Buy scheme—the government introduced it, and at best it was set to deliver 10,000 homes and it cost the Commonwealth $5.5 billion. It seems like they've set a target to spend a lot of money, because that's certainly one they're achieving. The Housing Australia Future Fund, the HAFF, as it was referred to, brings absolutely no guarantees of an increased supply and no guarantees that taxpayers will see positive returns from the fund's investments. But, once again, it's set to cost us big bucks. Spending—that's one thing we know about. The National Housing Accord has a target—good, we've got another target!—of 1.2 million homes, and it's already out of reach. What does this actually mean? We're now seeing across capital cities something in the order of 79,000 new homes to be finished by 2026. That's, I think, a drop of 26 per cent compared to the last year. When you factor into that the lack of attention—the real thing that'll help here of course is removing red tape. Ask anyone that has built a home or is about to build a home about how difficult it is to get approvals, with the various layers. Why doesn't the government do something to address that as an issue? They could set a target for that, do nothing about it and then do something about it, and it'll fail. That's seemingly the approach from this side of the chamber. The question then becomes: what would we do? We'd do what we said at the last election. We established the super homebuyer scheme to allow first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation, and the list goes on. Question agreed to. Assange, Mr Julian Paul 42 16:17 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) in response to a question without notice asked by Senator Shoebridge today relating to Mr Julian Assange. At 9.30 tonight, the UK courts will make a historic decision about the future of Walkley Award winning journalist Julian Assange. It could be the end of the road for Mr Assange. It could be the end of the road for many people, including in this place, who have campaigned for his freedom, and it could be the end of the road for press freedoms in western democracies. Of course, the courts are deciding whether to hear a full appeal against Mr Assange's extradition to the United States. This is the country whose war crimes and corruption WikiLeaks published over a series of years, and these are the same publications and information used by journalists all around the world to expose the Iraq war—and Mr Assange is the only one behind bars. Senator Shoebridge asked Minister Wong what her government was doing to seek the freedom of Julian Assange. I acknowledge that, in the other place just two weeks ago, a motion passed the chamber calling for his release. The Prime Minister spoke on that motion, and the government supported that motion. Sadly, the LNP, Mr Dutton, who has made public comments about wanting to see Mr Assange released, didn't support that motion. Nevertheless, this place, the Senate and the House, have come a long way from the years when the Prime Minister used to be on the speed dial of the head of the CIA and openly boast about that. We've at least been able to shift public opinion and shift political opinion in support of Mr Assange's freedom. Senator Wong said today, 'Enough is enough.' That's what the government's been saying for months. But Senator Shoebridge specifically asked, 'What are you doing?' and his second question was the most important: 'Will there be consequences' if our supposed close friend and ally extradites Julian Assange, a political prisoner, to the US? This would be the first time in history that the US government has sought extradition of a foreign journalist for activities on foreign soil using espionage charges. This precedent is deeply worrying to journalists and people all around the world. It has been condemned by the key media outlets in the United States as well as international unions of journalists and many other august commentators, yet still the show rolls on. The best that we can hope for tonight is that the UK judges, who finally, in the recent appeal, heard substantive information about the political campaign against Mr Assange, including information about CIA plots to assassinate Mr Assange—all now on record. I just hope that the UK judges understand the seriousness of this extradition and what is at stake. It's not just Mr Assange's health, his wellbeing and that of his family, including his wife, Stella; his children; his father, John; and his brother, Gabriel. Freedom of speech in our democracy is at stake here. If the most powerful nation on the planet can extradite a foreign journalist because they don't like what they publish, what kind of precedent is that setting? This is not just for our Western democracies; what message does that send other countries that we often rightly criticise for their human rights records and their records on freedom of press—totalitarian regimes? We are talking about the United States of America and an Australian citizen, an award-winning journalist who many people lauded for his exposes around the Iraq war. I'll be listening in at 9.30 tonight and I know a lot of Australians will be. I expect our government to act if Mr Assange is extradited to the United States. Have consequences put on the table. This has to affect our relationship. I know Australians will stand up for Mr Assange. Question agreed to. NOTICES 43 NOTICES Presentation 43 BUSINESS 45 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 45 16:22 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator McCarthy from 25 to 27 March 2024, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 45 NOTICES Postponement 45 COMMITTEES 45 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 45 Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) Select Committee 45 Appointment 45 16:24 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Ayres, Senator Shoebridge and Senator David Pocock, I move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI), be established to inquire into and report on the opportunities and impacts for Australia arising out of the uptake of AI technologies in Australia, including consideration of: (a) recent trends and opportunities in the development and adoption of AI technologies in Australia and overseas, in particular regarding generative AI; (b) risks and harms arising from the adoption of AI technologies, including bias, discrimination and error; (c) emerging international approaches to mitigating AI risks; (d) opportunities to adopt AI in ways that benefit citizens, the environment and/or economic growth, for example in health and climate management; (e) opportunities to foster a responsible AI industry in Australia; (f) potential threats to democracy and trust in institutions from generative AI; and (g) environmental impacts of AI technologies and opportunities for limiting and mitigating impacts. (2) That the committee present its final report on or before 19 September 2024. (3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows: (a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; (c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and (d) one nominated by minor party and independent senators. (4) That: (a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; (b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; (c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present; and (d) if a member of the committee is unable to attend a meeting of the committee, that member may in writing to the Chair appoint a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee at that meeting; if the member is incapacitated or unavailable, a letter to the chair appointing a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee may be signed on behalf of the member by the leader of the party or group on whose nomination the member was appointed to the committee. (5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (6) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and as deputy chair one of the members nominated by either the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate or minor party and independent senators. (7) That the deputy chair shall act chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant. (8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (9) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President. (12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. 16:24 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland by leave—I move: At the end of paragraph (1), add: (h) the national security risks to Australia presented by AI, including in relation to cyber security, misinformation and disinformation; and (i) any related matters. Paragraph (6), omit "either the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate or minor party and independent senators", substitute "the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator McGrath to business of the Senate No. 508 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:29]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 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. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. 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. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:31 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 Isn't this interesting? The coalition moved a motion last week to set up a select committee into AI following negotiations with the Labor Party—following a serious attempt to take the politics out of artificial intelligence. The Labor Party and the Greens said no, but, lo and behold, something happened over the weekend, and we find the Labor Party bringing in partisan, pithy, pathetic, personal politics into this place by denying the coalition, who tried to take politics out of artificial intelligence. What I say to the Labor Party and the Greens and Senator Pocock is you don't need artificial intelligence; you just need some intelligence to understand that this house of review should make sure we do not have party politics in something as important as artificial intelligence. So shame on the Labor Party, shame on the Greens and shame on Senator David Pocock, because you have shown your true colours when it comes to your contempt for this chamber, for this house of review— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McGrath. I did not want to interrupt your one-minute statement, but you do need to withdraw. Senator McGRATH 217241 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 508 standing in the name of Senators Ayres, Shoebridge and David Pocock be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

33 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. Lines, S. 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. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Community Affairs References Committee 48 Reference 48 16:37 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I advise the chamber that Senators David Pocock and Lambie will be co-sponsoring this motion, and I seek leave to amend business of the Senate motion No. 2 as circulated in the chamber. Leave granted. Senator BABET 300706 I move the motion as amended: That the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 August 2024: (a) Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data showing excess deaths in recent years, with particular reference to: (i) all-cause provisional mortality data reported by the states and territories to the ABS, and (ii) the difference between all-cause provisional mortality data for 2021, 2022 and 2023 and the preceding years of 2015 to 2020 (inclusive); (b) factors contributing to excess mortality in 2021, 2022 and 2023; and (c) recommendations on how to address any identified preventable drivers of excess mortality; and (d) any other related matter. 16:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government does not support this motion. The ABS is the definitive authority of mortality statistics and data in Australia and provides regular publications including provisional mortality reports, published every second month; deaths in Australia, updated annually; and excess mortality reports, published twice yearly. This data is published online and available to everyone. It is used by researchers, government departments and agencies, like the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and reported in reputable publications. In their analysis the ABS has compared the number of deaths which have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic to the number of deaths expected based on historical trends and adjusted for population changes. This includes deaths from all causes and not only those related to COVID-19. While death rates and cause of death are key indicators of the health status of a population, it is important to remember that every death that makes up the total statistic is a personal tragedy, and I acknowledge the tragic impact of these deaths on the families and friends of those who lost lives. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate No. 2 standing in the name of Senators Lambie, Babet and Pocock, as amended, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:40]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 30 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. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. 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. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

NOTICES 49 NOTICES Withdrawal 49 16:43 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Pursuant to standing order 77, I wish to withdraw general business of the Senate notice of motion No. 503 standing in my name. DOCUMENTS 49 DOCUMENTS Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel 49 Order for the Production of Documents 49 16:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for production of documents no. 474, agreed to by the Senate on 28 February 2024, requiring the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel Final Report to be tabled, has not been complied with, (ii) the Minister for Defence claimed the document may contain prejudicial information, and (iii) order for production of documents no. 491, agreed to by the Senate on 18 March 2024, requiring documents to be tabled containing advice the report contained prejudicial information and the date the government expects to complete consultation with identifying information redacted, has not been complied with; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim advanced by the Minister for Defence for orders nos 474 and 491, and notes that: (i) the claim does not address the apprehended harm that could result from the provision of the documents in redacted form, and (ii) order no. 491 requiring the Minister to provide the advice in relation to prejudice has not been complied with; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to comply with orders nos 474 and 491 by no later than 2 pm on Wednesday, 27 March 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business No. 506 standing in the name of Senator Roberts be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 30 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. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. 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. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps 50 Order for the Production of Documents 50 16:47 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I, and also on behalf of Senators Birmingham and 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, (ii) on 21 March 2024, the Senate rejected the claim of public interest immunity made by the Attorney-General, and (iii) on 25 March 2024, the Minister representing the Attorney-General advised the Senate that the Attorney-General '...reasserts his claim of public interest immunity in relation to the documents sought...as their disclosure would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclosure information that would be damaging to Australia's national security'; (b) again rejects the public interest immunity claim advanced by the Attorney General, noting that the claim still does not address the apprehended harm that could result from the provision of the documents to the PJCIS on a confidential basis; (c) requires the Minister representing the Attorney-General to attend the chamber on Wednesday, 27 March 2024, at the conclusion of consideration of private senators' bills and immediately prior to government business being called on, to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes of the failure to comply with the order and to explain the apprehended harm that could result from the provision of the documents to the PJCIS on a confidential basis; (d) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (c); and (e) any motion under paragraph (d) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 507 standing in the names of Senators Birmingham, Paterson and Chandler be agreed to. The Senate divided. [16:48] (The President—Senator Lines)    

The Senate divided. [16:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Attorney-General's Department 51 Order for the Production of Documents 51 16:51 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by midday on Wednesday, 27 March 2024, Dr Warren Mundy's recently-finalised independent review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 510 standing in the name of Senator Thorpe be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:53]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel 52 Order for the Production of Documents 52 16:56 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—In regard to notice of motion No. 506 moved by Senator Roberts, I'd like to indicate that the Greens actually support that motion; we don't oppose it. We opposed during the division, but I'd like to correct the record to have the Hansard note that the Greens support that motion. I can indicate to the Senate that it won't change the outcome of that motion. It was successful, in any event. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKim. I suspect there's no objection to that. COMMITTEES 52 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 52 Reference 52 16:56 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to amend business of the Senate No. 1 in the terms circulated in the chamber. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I move the motion as amended: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2024: The shutdown of the 3G mobile network and telecommunications services accessibility, with reference to: (a) the impact on access to triple zero emergency calls; (b) the number of devices and customers affected by the shutdown; (c) the absence of 4G services in rural and regional areas previously covered by 3G; (d) the impact on elderly and health-compromised Australians who use medical alert devices on the 3G network; (e) the impact on industries that use 3G devices; (f) the impact of a lack of telecommunications services on the economic and social circumstances of those who live in regional Australia; (g) service provisions and coverage; (h) efficacy and capability in disaster situations; (i) adherence to, adequacy of, and opportunity to improveservice obligations; and (j) any other related matters. 16:57 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—At the request of Senator Sterle, I move the following amendment: Omit "Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee", substitute "Environment and Communications References Committee". 16:57 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 We need an inquiry into the 3G issue to get to the bottom of what the government knew about the 4G phones that won't connect to the 000 service when the 3G network shuts down. On 17 March, the minister said she became aware of the looming crisis regarding 4G phones only 10 days earlier. This is very hard to believe. We know that key industry associations flagged this issue with the minister's office and indeed the department last November. We need to investigate the government's actions—or, more to the point, their lack of action—on the whole 3G shutdown. 16:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The 3G network switchover was first announced in 2019 and will provide a more efficient use of spectrum by mobile network operators to boost capacity and data speeds. However, the government is concerned that customers in possession of particular 4G handsets may mistakenly believe their mobile device is unaffected post switchover as the handset could continue to operate normally for voice and data except when trying to call 000. The government is not satisfied that adequate efforts have been made by industry to identify and inform their impacted customers. We have therefore tasked industry to stand up a new working group to support the planned switchover from 3G to 4G in a safer way and provide fortnightly updates to government. The government takes this issue extremely seriously. We will continue to monitor the switchovers and take further action as required. We will be supporting this inquiry. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Urquhart in the name of Senator Sterle, be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung — Senator Urquhart 231199 I seek leave to cancel the division. Leave granted. Question negatived. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, as moved by Senator Roberts, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:03]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 37 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Lines, S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Cost of Living Select Committee 54 Reporting Date 54 17:06 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia At the request of Senator Hume, I move: That paragraph (2) of the resolution of 28 September 2022 establishing the Select Committee on the Cost of Living, be amended to state: (2) That the committee present its final report by 15 November 2024. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 54 DOCUMENTS Housing Australia 54 Order for the Production of Documents 54 17:06 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 2 April 2024, any documents identifying the criteria or terms of agreement of availability payments to institutional investors or otherwise provided by Housing Australia. Question agreed to. Bureau of Meteorology 54 Order for the Production of Documents 54 17:07 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Thursday, 16 May 2024, all reports prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2023 for, as confirmed in Auditor-General report no. 39 of 2018-19, The Bureau of Meteorology's Delivery of Extreme Weather Services, the purposes of updating the Bureau's executive team and the following committees on the progress of the ROBUST program: (a) the Bureau's Investment Committee; (b) the Bureau's Major Transactions Committee; (c) the Bureau's Security, Risk, and Business Continuity Committee; and (d) the Bureau's Audit Committee. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF URGENCY 55 MATTERS OF URGENCY Middle East 55 17:08 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 26 March, from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The State of Israel's non-compliance with the International Court of Justice is evident in the blocking of aid into Gaza and the Australian government must take action to compel the State of Israel to comply with orders of the ICJ and allow aid into all parts of Gaza at the scale needed." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:09 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The State of Israel's non-compliance with the International Court of Justice is evident in the blocking of aid into Gaza and the Australian government must take action to compel the State of Israel to comply with orders of the ICJ and allow aid into all parts of Gaza at the scale needed. The matter of urgency put forward by the Australian Greens calls on the Senate to acknowledge the State of Israel's noncompliance with the orders of the International Court of Justice as evidenced in the continued blocking of aid provision to Gaza. Human Rights Watch has told the world, clearly, as have so many international aid organisations—and it's clear from the lived experience of Gazans on the ground—that the State of Israel continues to use starvation as a weapon of war. If we want more evidence of this we need look no further than the reality of the horror of children literally wasting before our eyes right now in Gaza. On the issue of the State of Israel's noncompliance with the orders of the International Court of Justice, who said clearly that the State of Israel must allow aid to reach the innocent civilians of Gaza—the children of Gaza who need food now. We need look no further than the reality that in the three weeks after the order of the court, less aid was delivered to the north of Gaza than in the three weeks leading up to the order of the court. As we sit here today, as a direct result of the policies of the State of Israel over 30,000 Palestinians are dead, millions have been displaced and starvation, disease and dehydration continue not only to be the everyday reality of the people of Gaza but the explicit policy of the State of Israel, wielded as a weapon of war. It is vital that Australia takes action to compel the State of Israel to comply with the orders of the ICJ and allow aid into all parts of Gaza at the scale it is desperately needed. Overnight, the United Nations Security Council passed a motion that reiterated a demand that all parties comply with their obligations under international law. The motion, uniting much of the world, expressed deep concerns about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza and emphasised the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance and to reinforce the protection of civilians in the Gaza Strip. The Greens are calling on the Senate today and we urge all members of this place to vote to implore the Australian government to do all it can to promote a permanent, ongoing ceasefire in Gaza and to get urgent humanitarian aid to all who need it in Gaza. Australia needs to play an active, engaged and constructive role in the creation of a lasting and just peace for Palestinians and Israelis. The Australian government must stop exporting arms to Israel. The Australian government must sanction the Prime Minister of the State of Israel and his war cabinet for the war crimes, crimes against humanity and, arguably, crimes of genocide which are the explicit policies of his cabinet and his government. And Australia must join with South Africa in supporting their genocide case against the State of Israel at the ICJ. The time is now for the Australian government to join with the Australian community, to discover the courage that lives within the Australian community, and to bring that courage into being, to champion it and its humanity in the spaces that we occupy on the global stage. 17:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I move: Omit all words after "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency", substitute: (a) that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is catastrophic and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are starving; (b) that all parties to the conflict in Gaza comply with the United Nations Security Council's (UNSC) demand in relation to ceasefire; (c) that immediate action must be taken by Israel to comply with the UNSC's demand that all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale are removed; (d) that Hamas comply with the UNSC's demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs; and (e) that all parties comply with their obligations under international law, including orders of the International Court of Justice which are binding. Colleagues, today we have an opportunity to come together in the Australian Senate in our common humanity. I say to senators that, if even the United Nations Security Council, which has been so divided on this issue and on many issues, can come together on this issue, surely the Australian Senate can. The world has finally got to a point where not one of the permanent members of the Security Council exercised a veto on a resolution about the conflict in Gaza—not the United States, as they have on previous resolutions, nor Russia or China, who vetoed a US resolution last week. So I say to my Senate colleagues that there is an opportunity for the Australian Senate to acknowledge this as a rare moment of agreement in the international community. Indeed it would be churlish of us not to. I know that this motion may not reflect every aspect of all our positions on these issues, but there is enough here to agree on. I ask senators to look for the points that are in front of them. Whether senators consider themselves a friend of Israelis or Palestinians or both, as I do, we should be able to come together in agreeing on the urgency of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. When hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza are starving, we should be able to come together to underline the urgency of an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, leading to a sustainable ceasefire as per the UN Security Council resolution; we should be able to come together to demand Hamas comply with the Security Council's demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages; and we should be able to come together to demand that the Netanyahu government comply with the Security Council's demand that all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale are removed. If the divided United Nations Security Council could come together on these issues then we ought to be able to do likewise. If countries as different as Algeria, Ecuador, France, the United Kingdom and others can agree on these points, then we ought to be able to do likewise. Not a single country voted against this resolution, and we should recognise what it means that not one of the permanent five members of the Security Council stood in the way. Right now we are faced with reports from the United Nations that 650,000 Palestinians in Gaza are starving and well over a million are at risk of starvation. Right now more than 1.7 million people in Gaza are internally displaced. There are, as I have said, increasingly few safe spaces to go. Right now there are more than 130 hostages still being held by the terror group Hamas, and we condemn Hamas's actions as we have always done. Colleagues, the Australian Senate has an opportunity to come together in support of the United Nations resolution and in support of international humanitarian law. This is a good thing. This has been a very difficult conflict in Australia. There have been too few moments when we have been able to come together. I respectfully submit to the Senate that this is a time when we can do so. If the UN Security Council can do it, surely this country can do it too. I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question now is that Senator Wong's amendment to the motion be agreed to. Question agreed to. 17:19 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to move an opposition amendment to the amended urgency motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Is leave granted? Senator Hanson-Young I0U My question is whether the question of Senator Birmingham's amendments will be put at the end of the 30 minutes? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Anything before the chair will be put at the conclusion of the debate. Is leave granted? Senator Hanson-Young I0U If Senator Birmingham doesn't put the question straightaway, we don't have to move to suspend. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I am in the hands of the Senate. Leave not granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I seek leave to suspend so much of standing orders as is necessary to allow me to move an amendment to the amended urgency motion. I do note the significance of the passage overnight of a UN Security Council resolution given the lengthy period of debate and number of failed resolutions during that time. I also note that, fairly swiftly following the passage of that UN Security Council resolution, the instigators of the 7 October terrorist attacks that precipitated the conflict we have seen in Gaza since that time—namely, Hamas—were quick not only to welcome that resolution but also to ignore key aspects of that resolution, a resolution that calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. The response of Hamas was to not accept the call for the unconditional and immediate release of all hostages but, instead, to suggest they would entertain that in some type of prisoner swap arrangement, such was the contempt with which Hamas greeted the resolution from the United Nations. We acknowledge the government in putting forward a resolution seeking to reflect much of the UN Security Council resolution; however, it is the opposition's view that that does not say enough. It does not say enough to reflect the totality of the UN Security Council resolution nor does it say enough about the totality of what should be Australia's clear, unequivocal moral conviction in this conflict. That is why I present and seek leave to move amendments in this chamber, amendments which would better reflect the UN Security Council resolution—namely, that the call for a ceasefire was for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, a ceasefire that would secure the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and that that can then lead to a sustainable ceasefire. We also seek to ensure that it is appropriately reflected that access for humanitarian assistance, which we wish to see flow to those who are suffering immensely in Gaza, requires the cooperation of all parties. Hamas has been filmed and recorded looting and stealing humanitarian assistance for their own purposes, so to place a moral judgement on one party in this conflict rather than reflecting that all parties must play a role in the provision of humanitarian assistance would be improper. We also seek to give this Senate the opportunity to restate critically the expectation that Hamas must lay down its arms and can have no role in the future governance of Gaza. These are points that the government has made previously, these are points that Australia should stand by and these are points that the coalition unreservedly stands by. We also, in acknowledging the horrific terrorist attacks of 7 October, believe it is critical that, when discussing these matters, the Senate again reinforces its unconditional condemnation of Hamas for its heinous terrorist attacks and recognises Israel's inherent right to defend itself. The suffering and the loss of life have been immense. It has been well and truly a result of Hamas's terrorist attacks and of Hamas using the Palestinian people and people across Gaza as human shields behind which they hide their terrorist operatives, their terrorist infrastructure and their terrorist capabilities. Hamas's actions have compounded that loss of innocent life in Gaza, as they affected the loss of innocent life in Israel and as they continue to immorally hold hostages from those 7 October attacks. I urge the Senate to give us the right to move these amendments and to have them incorporated into this motion. 17:26 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales After the ICJ's damning orders to Israel two months ago, Australia's responsibility was clearer than ever. The government must do everything in its power to force Israel to stop its genocidal slaughter and allow humanitarian aid to reach Palestinians immediately. Yet for two long months we saw children in Gaza succumbing to dehydration, hunger and malnutrition forced upon them by Israel. The Labor government refused to take any action. We haven't just seen a gross failure by the Labor government to hold Israel to account; we have seen something far worse—an utterly despicable continuation of their support and arming of Israel's genocide and a toxic gaslighting and undermining of those calling out Labor's failures and demanding justice for Palestine, as if suspending UNRWA funding without a shred of evidence was not ruthless enough and as if arming Israel with military equipment to massacre Palestinians indiscriminately and bomb Gaza to dust was not criminal enough. Now, 170 days into Israel's genocide, with more than 32,000 Palestinians killed and over a million Palestinians being deliberately starved, Israel has said that it will entirely block UNRWA food convoys to northern Gaza, and yet till today we had heard nothing but utter silence from this shameful government—no action, not even a response, only their continued support for Israel's genocide. After voting against every single motion the Greens have put up on Palestine, today the Labor government has been dragged to accept the bare minimum—that Israel must comply with the UNSC and Israel must allow aid into Gaza. The Greens and the community have dragged the Labor Party kicking and screaming to finally join our call to demand that Israel lift all barriers to the provision of humanitarian aid, but don't expect applause or kudos for being forced to do what you should have done from day one. Why has it taken so long, when for months it's been clear that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war? Rates of acute malnutrition amongst children in northern Gaza and Rafah have doubled in just one month, and the World Health Organization has warned of intergenerational malnutrition. Such is the level of food scarcity that, in northern Gaza, one bag of flour can sell for over $500. For weeks it's been beyond doubt that Israel is intentionally obstructing humanitarian assistance. Even the low numbers of aid trucks allowed into Gaza, meeting only a fraction of the need, are delayed an average of 20 days at the border, and essential supplies like generators, purifiers and medical supplies are confiscated. This is a brazen and criminal violation of a clear order from the ICJ for Israel to ensure aid reaches Palestinians under siege in Gaza. I'm sure I speak for many when I say we do not want a government that supports Israel's slaughter and forced starvation of Palestinians. Labor, your support of Israel's genocide is not in our name, and, come election time, I hope you're ready for a reckoning on your failures on Palestine. The Labor Party stands fully exposed to the community. You can roll your eyes. You can accuse us of causing division when we demand justice for Palestine. You can pathetically paint yourselves as victims. But no-one is fooled. The community can see right through it. You are on the wrong side of history. Let it be clear that you still haven't committed to ending weapon and military trade with Israel. You still refuse to call for an end to Israel's genocide and apartheid. You still refuse to condemn Israel. You still refuse to hold Israel accountable. You still use pathetic and passive language like 'humanitarian catastrophe' as if it's an earthquake and not a mass slaughter of Palestinians by Israel. Call a genocide what it is: a genocide. We will keep holding up a mirror to you, we will keep speaking out and we will keep protesting until Palestine is free. 17:31 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Last month the ABC reported on a family in Gaza who were eating bread made from animal feed and tea made from sticks. This was the only nourishment that they had to offer their desperately hungry children. The family reportedly made the bread after purchasing what they thought was a small bag of milled flour at an inflated price, but the flour turned out to be donkey food. This is the reality of life and death in Gaza. Children and young people are the worst off. A UNICEF report found that, in January, 15 per cent of children under the age of two in northern Gaza were acutely malnourished and almost three per cent were close to death. This starvation is man-made, directly caused by the Israeli government's systematic bombing to smithereens of Palestinian land, people and resources and by the blocking of critical aid into Gaza. The Israeli government is not just defying the ruling of the International Court of Justice to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide; it is actively accelerating and intensifying that genocide. Israel has barred UNRWA, the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, from making aid deliveries in northern Gaza, where the threat of famine is highest. UNRWA described this as outrageous, noting that this is intentional obstruction of life-saving assistance during a man-made famine. Yet the Australian government has dragged its heels. I'm glad that the government has agreed to the sentiments in their amendment to our motion, but there is so much more that the government could and must be doing. How many more Palestinians must perish? How many more children must starve? How many more people must be displaced before this government acts upon its responsibility to actively work to stop the crime of genocide? The Greens are calling on the government to, as well as call for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid, stop all military trade and cooperation with Israel, to impose sanctions on the entire Israeli war cabinet, to stop the transfer of information from Pine Gap that is supporting Israeli military operations—including, presumably, information supporting where to guide their missile strikes that are killing Palestinians—and to investigate for war crimes Australians who have served with the Israel Defense Forces in their genocidal war. This is likely to be my last speech in this place about justice and freedom for Palestinians, but I can assure you that my campaigning, along with that of all of us Greens and the millions of people across the Australian community, will continue until Palestine is free. 17:34 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put.    

The Senate divided. [17:39]
(The President—Senator Lines)

22 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Smith, D. A. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. 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. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:41 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, the time for the debate has expired. The motion to suspend the standing orders has lapsed in accordance with the precedents at page 246 of Odgers'Australian Senate Practice. I'm going to put the question. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Steele-John, as amended on the motion of Senator Wong, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:42]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. 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. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 22 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:44 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Leave is granted for two minutes. Senator THORPE 280304 Last Friday, around 120 activists in Melbourne established a community picket of Victoria International Container Terminal, stopping work at the terminal for over five hours and causing delays to two ships supplying exports to Israel. On Gadigal country over the weekend, 19 people were arrested for protesting a genocide and blocking a ZIM Israeli ship arriving at Port Botany. I want to send a message of solidarity to the community organisers, individuals and groups—like Unionists for Palestine, Block the Dock, Sit-Intifada and Action 4 Rafah—who are standing up against an increasingly violent and aggressive police force to call for justice and an end to the genocide. Your efforts have built working-class solidarity and understanding across the community. We've seen horrific images of police brutality towards peaceful protesters. The brutality of police against the community reminds us that they are here to protect those at the top. This Labor government continues to ignore, deflect and dodge questions about the support they're giving to genocide in Gaza and the profits they're making from it, with appalling responses that offer us no transparency, no accountability and no truth-telling. Resistance in this country has a long history, from the frontier wars to today. Together, we will continue to fight for an end to genocide here and in Palestine, for justice and for peace. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 60 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Taxation 60 17:46 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 A letter has been received from Senator Hume: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: That the Albanese Government has been happy to rule out tax hikes when politically convenient but uses weasel words when it's limbering up for more tax grabs from Australian households or businesses. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:46 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Albanese Labor government's term thus far is one that is littered with falsehoods, mistruths and broken promises, and weasel words that follow when those failures are finally called out. How does Labor mislead thee? Let me count the ways. Back in May 2022, immediately prior to the election, the then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, was asked a very simple question: 'Does Labor commit to the current superannuation arrangements for self-funded retirees and other superannuants, and do you rule out any increase to super taxes and changes to caps?' In response, he told the Australian people: 'We have said that we have no intention to make superannuation changes.' This was not simply a thought bubble from a man who wasn't across the detail. He was actually doubling down on what he had previously said many times—that there would be 'no changes to super'. And why wouldn't he say that? Let's face it: his shadow Assistant Treasurer, who was responsible for superannuation, had made the same commitment. He was asked what his planned changes for super were, and he said that his planned changes were more maintenance than architecture and that that was what was needed. What was this maintenance? It was doubling the tax rate on superannuation for tens of thousands of Australians. That's a hell of a maintenance bill. This doubling of the tax rate is not just going to hit Australians who are in retirement now or who are about to enter the retirement phase—those who have been planning and relying on the consistency of Labor promises who are now left in the lurch. This is going to apply most punitively to young Australians who are now just entering the workforce, because setting that $3 million cap without indexation means that in today's dollars a 30-year-old will have a real cap of around $1 million. Labor's doubling of super taxes will capture around two million Australians under the age of 25 who are earning an average wage throughout their life. This is entirely intentional. The next big mistruth of this government relates to franking credits. Prior to the election, Mr Albanese was asked about franking credits. He said very confidently, 'We're not touching those.' That was back in March 2022. What weasel words they were! Only months later, in October 2022, Labor handed down a budget with a sneaky new tax on franking credits. Labor's franking credit tax removes franking credits connected to capital raisings and share buybacks, and it will cost Australians around $550 million of additional tax in just four years—for investors and self-funded retirees, who rely on franking credits for their retirement. We haven't even come to the most recent weasel words of the Labor government. Do you remember this one? 'My word is my bond. We said during the election campaign that we would maintain the position on stage 3 tax that had already been legislated.' That was the Prime Minister in July 2022. Fast forward to 2024, on 10 January, when the Prime Minister was asked if he could promise stage 3 would come into effect in July in full and he refused to do so. He instead said, 'We haven't changed our position. Nothing has changed. The government has exactly the same position.' The Prime Minister said in April 2022, 'No, our objective is not about raising taxes.' Right! What we see in practice is three new taxes that the government explicitly said prior to the election that it would not do. Now, the question is: what is Labor turning its tax gaze to next? I have asked Minister Gallagher, the minister in here representing the Treasurer, about Labor's plans on negative gearing, and she has not given us a straight answer. When asked on live television, she said, 'We have no plans for that.' She was pushed again by the interviewer: 'That's not what I asked,' he said. 'Would you mind repeating, "There will be no changes to negative gearing under my government"?' But she couldn't do it. The best Minister Gallagher could do was say that there were no plans. There are those weasel words again! Yet, last week, we found out that there are more than 1,000 documents in the Treasury classed as advice to Treasurer Jim Chalmers about changing negative gearing and capital gains tax arrangements. If you have no plans, why do you need advice? This is the question for the minister. We could go on with examples of broken promises and weasel words: cheaper energy—$275 off your energy bills, a number that the energy minister won't even utter now; cheaper mortgages—getting the cost of living under control. The truth is that this is a Labor government that will do and say absolutely anything to get elected but has no thoughts about keeping its words post election. 17:52 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I am more than happy to tell Senator Hume and the chamber exactly what our tax plan is. Our plan is that every single Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut on 1 July. That is our tax plan. Our plan is that 13.6 million Australians will get a tax cut on 1 July. That is our plan. Our plan is that 90 per cent of Australian taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut than what was on offer from those opposite. That is our tax plan. Our plan is that Australians will keep more of what they earn. That is our plan, and our plan is working. What we are seeing is that wages are moving at the fastest rate in over a decade. We've seen minimum wage workers be supported by our government to receive over $100 a week more in their pay packet. Senator Hume 266499 What are real wages doing? Senator WALSH 252157 Under our government—thank you for asking that, Senator Hume. I will take that interjection. Under our government, real wages are growing. Real wages have been growing for three quarters under our government. Real wages are growing today, as you have just acknowledged, and I thank you for that, Senator Hume. That was the most honest thing that has been said by you in this chamber right now. Real wages are growing. Australians are keeping more of what they earn, and every single Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut under the Albanese Labor government. So I would like to thank Senator Hume for giving us the opportunity to talk about exactly how we are cutting taxes for working Australians and how working Australians will get to keep more of what they earn under our plan. We are putting more money in the pockets of working Australians. That is what we are about. We are making much-needed and important tax reform. That is what we are about. From 1 July, every single Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut—all 13.6 million taxpayers. That is nurses, it's tradies, it's librarians, it's early childhood educators, it's aged-care workers, it's teachers—every one of those workers is getting a tax cut under our plan. They are all going to be keeping more of what they earn, because that is what we want—we want people to earn more, and we want people to keep more of what they earn. And the good news is that that is exactly what is happening. People are earning more, and people will be paying less tax under this government. But we do know that the damage done by those opposite from their wasted decade in power lives on. Those opposite used low wages as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. It is sickening, really, to imagine that a group of people were sitting around the cabinet table and thinking it was a good idea to keep Australians' wages low as a deliberate design feature of their economy. They thought it was a good idea that Australians should have to work more for less. As for Labor, we support working Australians. We know the value of a good wage. We know the value of a secure job. Since coming to government, we have consistently supported an increase to wages in this country—wages for minimum wage workers, wages for aged-care workers and wages for all Australians through our secure jobs and better pay legislation. Those opposite, the Liberals and the Nationals, stand for low wages and higher taxes. That is clear, because under their proposal 2.9 million taxpayers would not have benefited at all. There was not a single change to those people's tax, and those Australians will now be keeping more of what they earn under our cost-of-living tax cuts. For example, a nurse earning $76,000 will get a tax cut of more than $1,500 a year—more than double what they'd get under the coalition's plan. So we thank Senator Hume for inviting us to talk about our economic plan. We thank Senator Hume for inviting us to talk about our tax plan, a plan under which every single Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut. When? On 1 July. How many Australians will get a tax cut? All 13.6 million of them. We thank you for inviting us to tell you our plan. 17:57 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The strangest thing about this whole debate on tax is the absence of ambition. Just last night we heard Dr Leigh, who's apparently an assistant minister in the government, proclaiming the Labor Party's changes to the stage 3 tax cuts as a tax reform. To use an old-fashioned saying, I'd have to eat my hat if that is tax reform. If reinstating a tax bracket which has already been abolished by the parliament is tax reform, then my hat will disappear down my throat in obviously a painful sort of way. There is a real lack of attention given to the major challenges facing the nation. We are a country which is very heavily reliant upon company and personal taxation—one of the highest in the OECD. One of the only reforms in the past few years that were worth noting at all was the changes to personal income tax during the last couple of parliaments. That's all now at an end, which is very sad because it's going to mean that more Australians will pay more tax over the medium to long term. Effectively, by reversing the stage 3 changes, the government has now locked in bracket creep on a permanent basis. But, of course, this is also a debate about taxes that Labor would like to put in place. These taxes in relation to housing are a real prospect and a real risk to the Australian community. The reason that Labor is now having to countenance playing around with taxes on housing is because its housing policy has completely failed. It has sunk into the sand because its plan to build and supply more houses has failed. Chris Minns, the New South Wales Premier, laughs at the federal government here and says, 'We won't even build half the houses that Canberra has asked us to build.' So it's a big fail on supply. It's a big fail when it comes to the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is a boondoggle for Labor union mates. And, of course, underlying all of this is Labor's giving up on Australians owning their own house. As we move to the next elections, the Australian people will have a very clear choice between a Labor Party that believes that big super funds and foreign fund managers should own the houses; the Greens party, which supports a government property developer, thereby giving up on the private economy; and the Liberal-National coalition, which believes that the people should be able to own Australian houses. For that to be realised there'll have to be an end to the demonisation of the construction building and property development sectors. We hear all the time from the Greens and the Labor Party that they're terrible people and can't be trusted to do anything. I'm not sure who the other parties think built modern Australia. There is going to be an important role for private capital to support the houses of tomorrow—the houses we need to see for our children. That is a reality, so we need to get back to a position where the government of Australia is going to support more supply and follow through on those plans. In question time today we heard Senator Gallagher proudly boast that the government had a target for building houses. That's great. I've got targets for lots of things—some I meet and some I don't. This is a pretty important target, because the way to address the shortfall in the cities is through more density and more houses. That is the way to do it. But it also means we need to be creative with our solutions, which is why the Liberal Party has put forward the idea that people should be able to use their own money to purchase their own house using their own superannuation—if they so wish. What is wrong with giving people options? I think, ultimately, the Labor Party now is looking at negative gearing and capital gains tax fiddles, but even if they did that it would only have an impact of between one and four per cent on the prices of dwellings in Australia, so it would be a very small thing—I'm so pleased that so many people could come and listen to this particular address! Thank you, Senator Rice!—it would only have a very small impact on overall pricing. Ultimately, people have a very clear choice between the Liberals, who want the people to own the houses; the Greens, who want government to own the houses; and Labor, who wants big super and foreign fund managers to own houses. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Bragg. This matter of public importance will be continued later. Pursuant to order, the Senate shall now move to valedictory statements, and I call Senator Rice. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 62 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Valedictory 62 18:02 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria We are here on Ngunnawal and Ngambri land. I acknowledge and pay tribute to the owners of this stolen land and to all First Nations peoples, including the Wurundjeri people where my home and office are, in Naarm/Melbourne. I'm sorry that in my decade in the Senate we have not made the progress that we should have towards First Nations justice, truth-telling and treaties. I'm appalled by the ongoing racism in this country, the deaths in custody, the poverty and the lack of self-determination experienced by our First Peoples. I salute the resistance and the resilience of our First Peoples and commit to continuing to work with them for justice after I leave this place. Ten years ago I came here with high hopes, enthusiasm and a commitment to do my best as a senator to make a difference in the world. I leave with a sense of achievement, particularly in passing marriage equality, establishing and completing the first national inquiry into poverty in 50 years and being one of the few in this place—along with my colleagues—to advocate for people and issues that are too often ignored by the powerful. I also leave with a more clear eyed view than when I arrived of the work and time and energy required to achieve change, to fight the vested interests and how the struggle for justice is ongoing. Working in this place certainly has its challenges, but after a decade here I still believe in our representative democracy. We just have to make it work for us. Sadly, but not unsurprisingly, too many people have tuned out from our political processes. They don't think that politicians are interested in listening to them or actually representing them. Too often, when it comes to the major parties, they are right, so people decide they've got better things to do with their time and energy than tune in. Why aren't governments listening to the people? A big reason is that wealthy and big corporations have outsized power and influence over both the Liberal and Labor parties. The majority of Australians want serious action on the climate catastrophe, and they want to see precious places and homes of threatened species protected. People want decision-makers to take a long-term view to take into account what the consequences of our actions are in 10, 20, 100 years time. People know that the fantasy of infinite economic growth on a finite planet is unsustainable. Surely, it should not be too hard for us to agree as a parliament that longer than three years matters and to commit to at least assessing the impact of regulations on future generations, just as we do with the impact on human rights. People want governments to properly fund public housing, to end homelessness and to stop skyrocketing rent. They want top-notch public education and health, including dental and mental, in Medicare. They want people on income support to have a liveable income, but Labor and Liberal tell us that we can't afford it. We can. We could increase taxes on the wealthy and the big corporations to fund the things that we urgently need but we don't, because the big corporations are calling the shots. Actions that would reduce the profits of the big corporations and mean they have to pay more tax are fiercely fought against by these corporations and their media mates. And because Labor and Liberal are both trying to appease their corporate overlords, too often they agree to deliver for the corporations rather than for the voters, who don't get a look in. Getting people to re-engage cannot be solved with a quick fix. It requires us to stand up to these companies and instead listen to the people and act on what is heard. We could do so much better in listening and learning from each other and from the community, understanding where and why we don't agree and acknowledging that no one person or party has a monopoly on wisdom. We do this to some extent in committee work but we could do much more. It has been a privilege to chair the Community Affairs References Committee for the last two years and to spend considerable hours of my life in the Environment and Communications Committee, and in Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and RRAT as well. The powerful work done to establish a body of evidence that we can agree on has kept me committed to committees. Our differences usually come down to differing views about what to do about the issues facing us. It would be a huge step forward if we could commit to establishing an evidence base more generally in our work here, including through establishing institutions, such as a parliamentary office of science and technology. This evidence could then underpin evidence based decision-making. I know, you can call me naive; I am obviously not a scientist at heart! It would be much easier to establish this evidence base if we had radical transparency. If we ever have serious debates about our future and what it will take to fix things then we all need to share the same information. Information is power and too often critical information is hidden to boost a particular case and discredit others. We need to strengthen our freedom-of-information laws and stop blocking orders for production of documents to ensure that evidence is available to all of us so we can shine a spotlight on government decisions made that are inconsistent with that evidence. From robodebt to sports rorts, from colour-coded spreadsheets to documents about dodgy contracts that are ostensibly about modernising Meals on Wheels, this stuff matters. In contrast, when we don't have that shared agreed evidence base, there is little to stop speech after speech in here with people sounding supremely confident, even when there is no evidence to support their views, views that may well work in a soundbite but that stoke conflict and division and inflame underlying prejudices. This may seem like a good political strategy at the time but it erodes people's trust in our democracy and results in people tuning out. But despite me seeing some room for improvement in how we work here, I have been proud to be part of some big steps forward over the last 10 years, the biggest being marriage equality. I took over as the Greens' LGBTIA+ spokesperson in 2015, when the campaign had already been going for a decade. Despite a conservative government in power, we got there. People were put through the wringer with the plebiscites and still feel the scars. People's human rights should never have been put to a popular vote. However, the committee process that led to Dean Smith's private senators bill was the best committee process I was involved in over my decade here because it was focused on achieving an outcome we could all live with, a genuine consensus. We sat around the committee room, and we debated and negotiated that bill clause by clause. Dean, Louise Pratt and I were the key players in that room, and we trusted each other. David Fawcett did an excellent job chairing. We had different pressures on us and different constituencies, but we knew that the only way we were going to achieve marriage equality was to end up with a bill that we could all live with, which is what we achieved. The marriage equality legislation we have now is not what the Greens would have drafted, and it's not what the others would have drafted, but we reached consensus on it, and marriage equality has changed lives. It's saved lives. It's created so much happiness and joy and wellbeing, and the sky has not fallen in. Marriage equality meant that I could stay married to my late wife, Penny, and she could change her birth certificate to say 'female' without us having to get divorced. Penny was such a star during the campaign for marriage equality. As a transwoman, she put herself out of her comfort zone to speak up, to say 'love was love' and that all we wanted was to stay married. Being married to a transwoman inspired me to be such a fierce defender of trans and gender-diverse people during the campaign and beyond. I feel so grateful for Penny's love and support and for our lives together until her sad sudden passing four years ago. For me now, marriage equality means that my partner, Anne, and I, who have been together for the last two years, can get married. A news flash—we reckon we probably will! I love you, Anne. In the Greens fight for marriage equality, long before either Labor or the Liberals would give it the time of day, we and the queer community and campaigners pushed the issue to a tipping point. Equality could no longer be ignored. However, the fight to reach the end of our journey towards equality continues. There's still discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people baked into our laws and our society. Just last week we received a stark reminder of this, with the debate over the proposed religious discrimination legislation firing up again. It's been such a privilege to be a voice for queer folk in this place, to be an out and proud bi+ person—the only out bisexual person in this parliament. To everyone who is part of our big rainbow family, it has been such a privilege to represent you in this place. It's been a privilege to be a voice for people, especially those whose voices go unheard, and a voice for our planet these last 10 years in parliament. I'm proud to speak up for people living in poverty. More often than not, they are treated like second-class citizens—as though being poor or out of work or having a disability represents some kind of character flaw. It doesn't. People on income support deserve far better from the politicians who are supposed to represent them. Every story I've shared of someone who is struggling on JobSeeker or the DSP or the youth allowance carries the message that their voices deserve to be heard. Breaking the poverty machine is an ongoing campaign, and one that must be won. The small increases in income support in the last budget are better than nothing, but the extra $4 a day still leaves people living in cars and tents with their kids, only eating one meal a day and living with excruciating toothache because they can't afford to go to the dentist. In a wealthy country like ours no-one should be living in poverty. Everyone in this place who voted in favour of the stage 3 tax cuts that gifted an extra $4½ thousand a year to politicians and billionaires while doing nothing for the one million Australians in poverty should be deeply ashamed of themselves. We can do so much better than this, as the inquiry I established and led on the extent and impact of poverty in Australia shows. We have to raise the rate of Centrelink payments above the poverty line to $88 a day and guarantee a livable income for all Australians. It's been so humbling to speak up for people across the world who are oppressed and persecuted for standing up for their rights, their homes and their very being. Last month, I was censured for speaking up for people in the Philippines and protesting the oppressive regime of President Marcos Jr. I would do that again in a heartbeat. Everyone knows where I stand on Palestine. Palestine will be free. The war in Gaza, the more than 30,000 people killed and the starving of the population is genocide not self-defence, and it is shameful that this Senate still has a motion on the books that says we stand with Israel. Tibet will also be free. Tibet is ranked by Freedom House as the least-free country in the world. It was such a privilege to travel to Dharamshala last year with our parliamentary friends of Tibet group. I will keep fighting for a free Tibet. In fact, I am just about to accept an invitation to join the board of the Australia Tibet Council. Thank you to all my Tibetan friends, including Karma Singey, the representative of His Holiness the Dalai Llama in Australia, who are joining me here tonight. West Papua too will be free. The shocking revelations in the media this week about the torture of West Papuan freedom fighters shows the oppression that West Papua is under. There's a contingent here tonight from the Federal Republic of West Papua, including Jacob Rumbiak, their foreign minister. Thank you, Jacob, and all of you for joining me here; I'm really touched. And Julian Assange will be free. God, I hope so! His unconscionable punishment must end. I'm proud to have contributed to getting people out of Afghanistan after the Taliban took over. Like most of our work, this was definitely a team effort. So many MPs in this place worked so hard in the weeks after Kabul fell, advocating for people in Afghanistan who were desperate to get out. Some of the people my team and I worked with managed to be amongst the lucky ones who got here and are forever grateful for Australia to have given the opportunity of a new life. And just last week we heard that two teenagers who my office had been advocating for for a year, who were separated from their mum and left in Afghanistan after the Taliban took over, have just received visas to come to Australia. There are many more refugees that Australia could and should be accepting, and we have to stop the racist demonising and scapegoating of refugees and asylum seekers, such as through the appalling legislation that is being rammed through the parliament today and tomorrow on the spurious grounds of national security that is not supported by evidence. So the campaigning continues. I'm proud to have spoken up in my speeches and advocacy here for the people of Myanmar, Kashmir, Ukraine, Iran, Hong Kong, East Turkestan, China, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Cambodia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Artsakh and Armenia, Sudan, Western Sahara, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Congo and Pakistan—to name a few. Human rights matter for all people across the world, and we cannot afford to pick and choose whose human rights we uphold. We should not discriminate because of political expediency, cultural biases, and historical and often very unjust so-called security arrangements. Lastly, I want to speak about the issue that got me started in politics that will always be close to my heart, that I've spent more than 40 years campaigning on: ensuring that our environment and native forests are protected and that our climate is safe for the whole web of life and for all the generations of life to come. The big win in this space that I've been proud to be a part of in the last decade has been the end of native forest logging in Western Australia and Victoria. These were wins that were achieved because of the campaigning of millions of people over decades, supported by Greens in parliaments who have been listening to the majority of Australians who want to see an end to native forest logging across the country. Our forests are more than mere commodities. They are our breathing spaces, a mosaic of life that's bigger than us. They soak up and store massive amounts of carbon and they deserve to be protected. At least we finally now have a recovery plan for the Leadbeater's possum—10 years of estimates questioning finally paying off! And now for protecting swift parrots and greater gliders and all of our precious animals and birds threatened by logging, and seeing off forest management activities, including in Victoria and Western Australia, that are not grounded in forest protection. The campaigning continues. Everyone who knows me knows how much collaboration and teamwork mean to me. Nothing worth doing is ever done alone, so I want to close by saying a huge thank you to everyone who has shared my journey over the last decade. Thanks for your support during the hard times when my wife, Penny, passed away suddenly in 2019—something that you think you could never get through, but you do. I learnt a lot about myself, about love, about life and about the power of community and the natural world to support and nurture and heal. Experiencing such a loss has made me wiser, more empathetic and loving, more spiritual and a better representative because of that. Thanks to my amazing staff. All of us politicians here would be nothing without our staff. T hanks to my current team: Rachel, Shani, Vic, Shreya, Nic, Claudia, Sam and Luci. And thanks to those who have gone on to other things: Tarek, Georgia, Mia, Simon, Sam, Matija, Rachel, Simone, Ellie, Nat, Alyssa, Srishti, Harry, Freja, Gid, Illiana, Joe, Flis, Maddy, Pavel, Chelsea and Adam. What an incredible bunch of folks you all are! A lot of part-time workers! I couldn't have done it without you. Thanks to my wonderful Greens colleagues and former colleagues and all the staff, led so capably by Adam and by Richard and Christine before him. I will miss you all. It has been a great honour to have chaired our party room for most of the time I've been here and to have facilitated us through so many decisions—almost all of them made by consensus, aided and abetted by copious cups of tea. I'm pleased to announce that my teapot is being bequeathed to the Greens party room archive. Thanks to the tireless efforts of our Greens workers and volunteers. Thanks to every branch, every working group, national council, state councils, every member, every supporter and every voter. We are a great green ecosystem, and we wouldn't exist without each other. I've been so proud to see the Greens grow over the decades. I was one of the founders of the party in Victoria 31 years ago, and I know that we are on track to continue to grow in size and in power. Bring on the next election! It is truly inspiring. The Greens and the communities we represent are what gives me hope for a healthy future—another world which is not only possible but she is on her way. Thanks to all the advocates and campaigners I've worked alongside. There are far too many to mention, but I do want to shout out to all the First Nations reps, social justice advocates, unionists, aged-care campaigners, young people, queer folks, women's groups, environment groups and climate groups galore. I hope to keep working with you post parliament, too. Thanks to everyone here and in the House who I worked with over the years, sharing support for just causes, learning together, hearing people's stories in committees and parliamentary friendship groups, negotiating together, travelling together and just hanging out and having a chat—connecting together across political differences. Those have been treasured experiences. Thanks so much to all of the staff who support us here, from the clerks and attendants to the cleaners and the Comcar drivers. We could not do our work without you. Thanks to my mum, my kids—John and Leon—my sisters and brother, my friends who I haven't seen nearly enough of over the decade but who have stayed there for me, supporting me personally and politically. I'm so looking forward to having more time with you all. Thanks to Anne for sharing the highs and lows, putting up with the late nights and hardly seeing me as I arrive in Canberra for parli weeks. I'm so looking forward to having much more time with you and lots of adventures over the rest of our lives together. There's so much that I'm looking forward to having more time for: from working with people to build skills and working collaboratively, to campaigning, spending time out bush and at home and in my garden, playing and listening to music, and being on my bike, beginning with riding home from Canberra to Melbourne in May, as a bookend to my ride here a decade ago. Anyone who would like to join me for all or part of the way, please get in touch. At the end of my time here, I am acutely aware that I stand on the shoulders of giants and that my work is just part of a movement of billions of people around the world, including my amazing colleagues here and soon-to-be Senator Steph Hodgins-May, who I know will be awesome. My final words: stay hopeful that things can change and keep working determinedly towards that change. Just because we haven't reached where we need to be yet doesn't mean we can't and we won't. We have to keep at it because one thing is certain: if you don't fight, you lose. So onwards and upwards! Thank you. 18:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I rise on behalf of the government and the Labor Party to acknowledge and thank Senator Janet Rice for her service to the people of Victoria, to the Senate and to the nation. Senator Rice has served for just under a decade in this chamber. She was first elected at the 2013 federal election and took a seat in the Senate in July 2014 before being re-elected to represent Victoria at both the 2016 and 2019 elections. Senator Rice's passionate advocacy for our environment, particularly native forests and wildlife, is well known, along with her deep interest in addressing climate change. I understand that Janet was a key player in the formation of the Australian Greens, Victoria, around the time of the 1992 Victorian state election. I recall that this was not the first position Janet was elected to. Before entering the Senate she was a Greens councillor for the City of Maribyrnong in Melbourne for six years, serving one year as mayor. Senator Rice has served at various times as the Australian Greens spokesperson on forests; tourism; transport and infrastructure; mental health; agriculture and rural affairs; sports; science; research and innovation; foreign affairs; multiculturalism and, most recently, social services, aged care and government services. But during her time in the Senate, working on LGBTQI issues—and one in particular—was when Senator Rice worked most closely with those on this side of the chamber. It was of course an issue that was deeply personal to many Australians, including Senator Rice, and that is the campaign for marriage equality. It was a long and arduous road to marriage equality, as Senator Rice herself said when speaking to the bill to amend the Marriage Act. Senator Rice spoke eloquently on what the achievement of marriage equality meant and continues to mean for LGBTIQ people and their families: It means that our love, our relationships and our families will be equal under the law. It means that LGBTIQ people will feel safer to hold the hand of their partner when they walk down the street. It means that LGBTIQ couples will be able to get married and to celebrate their love in front of family and friends. And it means that young LGBTIQ people will feel safer to come out, knowing that their community said yes and that who they are and who they love is respected by law. I know that my colleague Senator Wong wanted to thank Senator Rice for her collaboration in making marriage equality a reality. The work across party lines remains an example of how what unites us in this place is often greater than what divides us, and that we can do great things when we put the greater good ahead of grandstanding and narrower partisan interests. I hope we can do more of that on the issues that matter to the people we represent. In her first speech in this place, Senator Rice described how her upbringing instilled in her the values that saw her pursue a career in public service. She said: My upbringing was one where you had a responsibility to contribute if you could and to follow the golden rule of doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. They are the values of a caring society. Senator Rice went on: I grew up believing in a just society. I believed that if people were law abiding and hardworking then they would have the opportunities to live successful lives. And I believed that government decisions—in Australia at least—were evidence based and in the best interests of society as a whole. While it certainly is true we on this side of the chamber have not always agreed with every position Senator Rice has taken here or elsewhere, nor is that a requirement in our great pluralist democracy. These are values we should all strive to uphold in this place. In my own experience working with Senator Rice, particularly on committees, Senator Rice was always collegiate, sometimes patient—mostly impatient!—and mostly constructive. And, whilst we will hear the last of Senator Rice in this chamber, I'm confident it won't be the last we hear of Senator Rice. I was going to mention the Leadbeater's possum as well! Sincerely, on behalf of the government and the party, we thank Senator Rice for her near-decade of service to this place and to the people of Australia. We wish you well in the next chapter of your life, particularly your future wedding, and place on record our thanks for your contribution to the nation as well. 18:31 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It is a valedictory, not an obituary. Janet, we want to thank you, congratulate you and wish you well most sincerely in this place. I wont repeat the biographical details that Senator Chisholm has outlined save to say that your place in Australian political history is a notable one and an important one. To have played a role in the formation of your party, of the Greens in Victoria, is no small feat. To then have seen it grow as it has—much as some of us may not like that!—to have seen its support grow and to have had the opportunity to serve that party in the nation's Senate is something that you and your family should be very proud of, more particularly the pride in how you conduct yourself and the work that you have undertaken during your time in the Senate. As has been acknowledged, that work has stretched across a whole range of different portfolios and areas, some of which, of course, we've had vast differences in. I note your long list of foreign affairs and human rights engagements that you made in your remarks. Many of those I'm sympathetic to. Some we will have points of difference in. One you mentioned, of course, was when most recently I got to move the motion censuring you. I suspect you are pretty happy that I moved it too though! It's that passion, that determination that you have brought to the Senate—a genuineness and a passion across the different causes that you have championed. You have done so consistently, be it in the areas of human rights, as I said; in areas of multiculturalism; in standing up, of course, for forests—and perhaps we should have a commitment that every remark made in this valedictory should mention the Leadbeater's possum just for the sake of ensuring that that is driven home on the way through; in areas of transport and infrastructure, where we look forward to the Insta journey of your bike ride back home from Canberra; and across the realm of science, research and innovation. I'm sure we also acknowledge the particular role that you have played in advocating for equality for LGBTIQ+ peoples and particularly the work during the marriage equality debates. I know very well the work that you did with Louise, with Dean, with David and with others. The way in which you reflected on that committee process is an important testament to how you all applied yourselves to be the best of this Senate and to ultimately achieve an outcome that I was pleased to sit with you on the same side for. I acknowledge your critical role in getting to that point. You did that along the journey and with the personal challenges that you had, and the way in which you came back to this chamber following the tragic death of Penny and the professionalism and determination with which you have conducted yourself and applied yourself is a real credit to you and obviously to the love and support of your family, of your friends, of your staff, of your colleagues, of your fellow party members and of all of those whom you acknowledged throughout your remarks. Congratulations to you and Anne. I hope it wasn't news to Anne! But we do wish you all the very best in the years ahead. May you get much pleasure from the continued advocacy and campaigning that I have no doubt that somebody of your spirit will do, but also from your great exploration of the wonderful world around us that I know you will take your zest and love of life into. I know as well that you will do so with the type of passion that you've deployed throughout your service in this place. We wish you well. 18:35 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland What a brilliant valedictory speech—so full of grace and wisdom—from our dear friend Janet! And I'm so pleased that Greens leader, Adam Bandt, and our members in the lower house, Max and Libby, were able to hear the tail end of it, after the tragic passage of the bill to facilitate offshore gas. But more on that later. I and all of the team will dearly miss Janet's presence in this place. She is such a force in our movement. Before I share some personal memories, I want to emphasise a few of her incredible achievements. And it's so weird, because I've got my back to you, Janet—I'm sorry about all of this. Janet fought hard for everyone to love who they want and to marry who they want. She was at the forefront of campaigning for marriage equality, and what an incredible win that was! I love that you've hinted at impending nuptials, and I look forward to the wedding invitation if and when that transpires. You'll have to sort out the dogs and the cats getting along, though! I know that's an ongoing issue. We're so grateful for her ongoing leadership in LGBTIQ+ communities and for her advocacy, in particular, for trans and gender diverse people. Janet was also an integral part of the tampon tax campaign. In 2018, after I section-44ed myself, Janet introduced a bill to the Senate to scrap the GST on sanitary products, which passed with the support of some of the crossbench and Labor. Well done, Janet. For over 40 years Janet has campaigned to end native forest logging. I'm not sure whether she'll be relieved or not, but there won't be any more questions about Leadbeater's possums in estimates. Perhaps we'll keep up the focus. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WATERS 192970 It's all good! The announcement that Victoria will end native forest logging was an incredible win from her tireless advocacy and, of course, that of many others as well, and the Greens will continue Janet's fight until we have a native forest logging ban nationwide. Janet has always advocated for the protection of human rights. She's fought for a free Palestine, a free Tibet, a free West Papua, and she hasn't stopped calling out human rights abuses for the 10 years that she's been in our federal parliament. She's courageous under fire always. Janet has reminded us time and time again in this place that poverty is a political choice, and I want to congratulate her on securing and then completing a mammoth 18-month inquiry into poverty, which gathered convincing evidence that our current social security system and income support system are inadequate and leave the most vulnerable Australians—single mums, domestic violence survivors, those struggling to keep a roof over their heads—condemned to poverty. In her words: We have a moral responsibility as elected representatives not to relegate millions of our fellow citizens to a life of poverty. All of this work shows what a huge heart Janet has and, despite 10 years in a place where, frankly, artifice and peacocking dominates, Janet's realness and her honesty, her unfailing sense of justice and integrity, and her deep care for people and the natural world have always shone through. She has never compromised on that, and I applaud her humanity and her compassion. I will continue to consider you a dear friend and an inspiration. During her time with us she faced deep grief, with the passing of her wife, Penny. I was with her for part of that awful day, and I've watched with such pride as she's opened her heart again to her partner, Anne. It's clear that her heart's capacity knows no bounds. You're a lucky lady, Anne. Janet was one of the founding members of the Greens. For anyone to spend 40 years in politics is heroic, but for it not to cruel you and darken you is an incredible achievement. She is joyful, and we will miss that ray of sunshine in our party room so much. In her honour, once she leaves this place, I will try to emulate her habit of taking the outside path from the chamber to the office in order to get some fresh air. I won't be alone, I hope. I won't, though, be doing a cycling commute to and from the building at all hours of the day and night, as she does. And I don't plan on getting stuck in Antarctica either—as Janet famously was before she took office. Janet joined the parliament when dear Christine Milne was the Australian Greens leader. And Christine would like me to share this brief message with you, Janet: Janet has been an activist for environmental and social change all of her life. I was so pleased when Victorians voted to send her to Canberra to speak for them as part of the Green Team following the 2013 election when Tony Abbott and the climate deniers and fossil advocates took charge. She quickly found her feet as a climate campaigning senator and LGBTIQ+ marriage equality champion. As a founding member of the Vic Greens with Marg Blakers—who I think is here with us tonight—and Peter Kristof, she demonstrated her long-term thinking and commitment to building new institutions and new ways of decision-making. She has been a peacemaker and a change-maker in the Greens and the community, from local government to the Senate. Christine continues: But most of all Janet is a defender of nature and a climate activist. I have no doubt that will continue post politics and I look forward to working with her in our ongoing battle to end native forest logging in eastern Australia and to keep 1.5 alive. Activists and campaigners don't retire; we just change roles and platforms and never give up. Janet's leaving the parliament is the community's gain. Congratulations on a decade of driving change. And former Greens leader Richard di Natale also wanted me to pass on his best wishes to you, Janet. We need more people like Janet in this place. The Greens will of course keep fighting for social and economic justice, for forests, for human rights, for LGBTIQ+ rights, with the determination that you have shared with us for 10 years in this place. And I know you will keep fighting for all of those things outside of this place. Thank you for giving us and this place so much of yourself in the service of good, Janet. We are going to miss you so very much. 18:42 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia All of my colleagues of course want to make a contribution to this and we are running against the clock, so I will keep comments brief, as Janet always liked to make sure we did as she chaired the party room, except of course if she had an idea she wanted on the table. We are going to miss you, Janet, dearly. I can't remember the first time I met Janet, because I was a ratbag teenager at some point in the Victorian forests, and Janet has always fought to protect where I grew up and my home. And I know that you will continue to do that. Your love for our forests and our environment and our wildlife is unmatched. The fact that everyone in this place knows that, come estimates time, the Leadbetter possum was going to be raised, because we all know that you have such a strong commitment to the natural world and that you can see that it is not there just for our use. We are part of the environment and it sustains us. You have always believed that. You've always fought for that. Sometimes in this place it is very easy to have one's debates or issues too simplified and we lose the true meaning. I think Janet has always been one—she does the internally in our party room process, but I see her do it time and time again in this chamber—to not allow us to lose sight of what it is that we are actually trying to save and why we are trying to save it. You are a true believer, Janet, in consensus. Sometimes that meant our meetings went for a very, very long time. But, right down to some of those very late-night discussions when there were issues that we really had to struggle to come to an agreement on, you had faith that getting to the consensus position would mean we would all be able to go out of that room and back-in those decisions. And I can't say the same for everybody else in this place. It's something that you have always held your head high and been determined about—not wanting us as a group to be unhappy with the position that we are fighting for with our votes that people have sent us here to cast—to uphold that, to be proud of that, to make sure that people are included and heard. Lastly, I want to say that the contribution that Janet made to the marriage equality debate was remarkable and important, and it was for all of us. Janet talked all the time about what it meant for her and her relationship with Penny at the time, but you were doing that for all of us, and I know it took a toll. I know a lot of that debate was hard. A lot of that debate meant that you had to front some pretty horrible things during that period, but you did it for everybody else, and we are forever grateful. Thank you, Janet. We're going to miss you, and we might share the cup of tea around. 18:46 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I want to say thank you to you, Senator Rice, and I use your title while you are still a senator. It has been an honour and a privilege to work with you. I thank you for your visibility with your wife Penny. That meant a lot to me. You have held people absolutely to account in this place for the kinds of values that you hold strongly and hold dear, many of which I share, although sometimes our respective political movements differ in their execution. It has been a good thing I think to be able to step through that accountability on issues, whether that's for the environment, for social and economic justice, poverty, renters' rights or environmental issues. I love how you took credit for the Greens just now for stopping logging in native forests in Western Australia. Actually we should talk about that further because it hasn't actually stopped. There is logging and there is mining—anyway, we'll talk about that another day. I know other Labor senators wanted to say a few things, and I think Senator Smith is hoping to make it back in time to do so. For my own part, I really just want to say that I will miss you, I thank you and that I hope that my wife Bek and I bump into you and Anne at some kind of lesbian forest retreat or something, which you will be much more familiar with than I am but I know I will enjoy equally as much. Thank you. 18:48 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Janet, I extend to you the warmest and most generous cheerio. You will absolutely be missed. As you were mentioning some of your important work and causes here, the parliamentary friends of free Tibet, the parliamentary friends of grandparent and kinship carers and your work on Myanmar, I couldn't help but think that perhaps too much of my time is spent in the company of Greens as well, because on those issues we have worked very, very closely together. You have been constant in speaking up for people—never timid, but then never rude either. You are always giving people the space, and always inviting people to listen, to learn, to understand and ultimately to care a bit more. Just a few weekends ago, I had the opportunity to interview Janet on Joy 94.9 Saturday Magazine with Macca. There were a lot of powerful things in the conversation. The most powerful thing for me was your reflection on the importance of your relationship with Anne. I was sitting over there where Senator Raff currently sits when you came to learn of Penny's passing—it was during question time. Being the ever-dutiful Chief Government Whip at the time, my job was to scan the environment constantly. I saw great care and concern in the Greens enclave, I saw your colleagues rally around you, I saw their distress and I really saw the deep sense of respect, trust and love that they had for you, particularly in your time of need. For me it was a really powerful reminder of how important it is to do these jobs knowing we are loved and cared for by others. That was a really important point for me. When we look back on the same-sex marriage debate—and I always like to remind people that I was probably the latest, not the earliest, comer to that—what is really remarkable and what is not reflected on enough is how everyone in that debate trusted each other and respected each other enough to give up a bit of territory, and everyone in that debate—with the exception of one part of our community—saw how important it was to give up some of their territory. It was in the giving up of that territory that the parliament could come to a unified position. I always love to see the colour and movement and all the historical images of that debate because you'd think it started and ended in the House of Representatives. For me it's a really powerful reminder of how the work of the Senate and the work of senators isn't really appreciated in our community. That might be a virtue because I think the Senate does, for the most part, attract different sorts of people. That's why such a significant outcome like the marriage equality debate and outcome was initiated, struggled through and delivered in the Senate. We all knew that, once that moved on from this place to the other, it was done. I extend to you my warmest thanks for the friendship and trust that you've shown me. I have learned something very powerful from being in your company and watching you do your work. That is just how important it is to be visible, and how important it is as an LGBTI+ person to be more visible because often, in the world around us and even in this place, people seek to diminish us, our achievements and the contributions that we can make. But you've risen above that. Congratulations to you, and I don't know if I need to come to the lesbian forest retreat but I'm happy to come to the afterparty. 18:53 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Janet, you are just the most terrific human being. You are optimistic and indefatigable, you are an extremely caring and loving person and you're an authentic human being. In one of the greatest compliments I can give to anyone, you are a genuine life enthusiast. Enthusiasm for life takes a little bit of courage because you're not just opening yourself up to the good things. To be an enthusiast, you're opening yourself up to some of the blows that life can land on you and sometimes those blows land really deeply in your heart and in your gut because you are so open and enthusiastic. Despite a couple of blows along the way, you have remained a genuine enthusiast and you have my upmost regard for that. Others have spoken about some of the things you've been involved in. I want to mention forests, and what an honour it is to take that portfolio on after your massive efforts—with some success. I know you will agree the fight is not over and it will go on, and yours are really big hiking boots I now have to try to fill, but I take it on because I genuinely share your abiding love of nature which has shone through in what you do because you're a force of nature as well as someone who loves nature. We have heard that you are a founding member of the Victorian Greens. All of us in the Greens stand on the shoulders of giants, founders, elders and legends of our party, and you take your place in that pantheon for us. I know my colleagues will forgive me a slight breach of our party room rules, so I'm going to reveal something that happened this morning, and it was about Max Chandler-Mather, who is here with some of his House of Representatives Greens colleagues. It turns out that Max was born in the year that Janet helped found the Victorian Greens. That is how far we have come as a movement and how far, I have no doubt, we are going to continue to go. Janet's love of consensus decision-making has made some of the more impatient in our party room—I'll put my hand up here—gnash our teeth from time to time but it comes from an abiding love of that process. Janet, I know you genuinely believe it, as we all do, that a decision made by consensus is one that will stick. You have repeated that to us. Janet, I've got to go to Selection of Bills Committee but we are all far, far better people for having spent time with you. We trust there will be plenty more of that to come. I will see you in the streets, and it wouldn't surprise me if I see you on the barricades in the forest one day. Thank you very much, Janet. 18:56 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I'm going to say it at the start, Janet: I will miss you so much. I said that to you many times since I heard you were leaving. Senator Janet Rice has not just been a fierce champion of equality in this chamber, she has been a remarkable colleague and a very dear friend to me. When I started here I was lucky to get an office right next to Janet's and that meant I got wonderful doses of Janet's optimism—her glass half-full philosophy—sunshine and positivity. With our two offices being the furthest away from this chamber, Janet and I were often running partners in the race to come here and beat the bell. On the way back, I got to see sunshine if I followed you through the outside route. I guess it is these little things and the incredibly big things that you have done, Janet, over your 10 years in here that we will miss and we will remember forever. I can truly say, Janet: you are the most caring, genuine, heartwarming person in here. You truly are. Others have said it—your heart is so big; it just gives to so many people. As you retire, you leave an indelible mark on this place and on our collective struggle for social and environmental justice. There are too many examples to give but I will mention a few. You have been such a tenacious advocate on LGBTQIA+ rights and for the community, fighting so passionately for equality, for acceptance, for dignity. Your proud presence and work in the Senate, I think, has actually changed what it means to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender diverse, intersex and queer in Australia today. I think that is the level of impact that you have had. Just over six years ago, when the marriage equality bill finally passed through parliament, it was the culmination of your tireless work, Janet, and of so many other Greens and so many others in the community for decades. Your legacy, Janet, for me, continues to be a beacon of hope and a stimulant for progress on the challenges and discrimination still faced by so many LGBTQIA+ communities. So many have spoken about your work on protecting native forests and I will as well. The 10 years of asking about the endangered Leadbeater's possum recovery plan—I will not forget that—is really testament to your deep love for nature and your resolve to safeguard it for the future. With your mantra of poverty is a political choice, you have brought so much care, attention and energy to our work on social services, which has continued the Greens legacy of fighting for fairness. I will talk about the party room as well. I won't reveal any secrets, but I will mention your wisdom, your integrity your compassion and your practice of consensus as chair which you brought to our party room and which has really enriched our deliberations and our decisions in the end. Who can forget you holding up a Palestinian flag as we walked out of the Senate in protest? Who can forget your recent protest and your really deadly speech on human rights in the Philippines? It made me, yet again, proud to be your colleague and friend. It truly epitomises your courage and your determination to uphold human rights here and everywhere else in the world. So you will be very, very deeply missed. I feel this real pang of sadness at your departure. I am truly thankful to have spent the last five years with you as a colleague and a friend. From the bottom of my heart, I really wish you the best of times to do the things that you haven't been able to do as much as you wanted to do during your time here, because it does take over your life—to spend time with family, friends and loved ones, to campaign more, to be out and about cycling and walking in the bush and also, hopefully, knitting more colourful scarves for equality. I love you, Janet. Thank you so much. 19:01 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia How do you begin to sum up someone so incredible that is such an amazing force in this place, like Senator Rice? I think I echo everyone's comments that we have been so fortunate to have been able to work with you. She's loud, she's proud and she's fierce but also she's warm, caring and so welcoming. She is so smart, dedicated and passionate. Senator Rice—and I too am going to keep calling her Senator Rice until the end of the day—has well and truly shown us how politics should be done differently and how compassion and determination can in fact co-exist. What an amazing and incredible activist and an amazing all-round person you are, Janet! You give such inspiration, not just to us as colleagues but to everyone in our party and in the movement. We're just so grateful. I've had the great privilege of working alongside you in the party room since 2021, but I probably fangirled for longer than that. We know your amazing bio and the work that you've done since coming to the Senate in 2014. Whether it's forests, tourism, marriage equality, foreign affairs, aged care, social services, government services, transport—the whole gamut, really—in all of that work you leave such an amazing legacy, but the big work of founding the Victorian Greens is such a huge part of this party, and we will continue to work to ensure that our development and our growth as a Greens movement is part of what you started. For this alone, we owe you so much. Thank you. I'm not going to draw this out any longer than I should, but one of the really great memories that I have of you, Janet, was the protest, also. When we asked, 'What does that look like?', you just knew from the time that this was crafted what you were going to do and your confidence in that just told me: 'Oh, it's great. Janet has a plan.' And it is something that I know and that I hold onto when I work alongside you: 'Janet has a plan, and we're in safe hands.' The stewardship that you gave us in the party room as our party room chair gave me great confidence from day one when I worked in that place. The quiet conversations—whether it was dinner at the Kingston foreshore or your coming to Perth to help me campaign to be re-elected—are the really precious moments that I have about the quiet confidence, the mentorship, the support and friendship that you offered to me in this place. For me, some of the bigger parts of the work around the cashless debit card and the way that you passionately talked about the abolition of the cashless debit card came through as so important in your work and your passion for working alongside as a great ally to our First Nations communities. There is the legacy that's left by Rachel Siewert and Raise the Rate in eradicating poverty for our communities, and you just grabbed hold of that, took it and made it your own. I'm so glad, when I come into the chamber and make a speech, to say, 'Oh, I agree with Senator Rice,' because there were so many things that you just paid so much attention to. I want to thank you from all the First Nations people that you worked so passionately with, particularly over the last 18 months in that campaign. You continue to be so present, and I think Senator Smith and Senator Pratt both articulated your visibility in this place as a constant reminder that you give us about the rainbow family. To be a proud ally standing beside you and campaigning, particularly in Perth at our pride events, is one of the memories I hold very close to me. You worked so hard, Janet, and you deserve a rest! I'm glad to hear about the forest retreat. I'm sure that you and Anne will make some wonderful memories in the future. Like Larissa, I look forward to the wedding invitation and the pending nuptials. But enjoy your retirement and your rest in particular. I know this won't stop you. I know your passion and your energy, because you can't keep a good woman down for too long, and I know that's you. Thank you so much, Janet. 19:06 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I'm going to preface this by saying I'm convinced I'm going to cry very soon, but I'm going to do my best. Janet, I want to say thank you to you as an elder of our party, and to everyone else who's an elder of our party, for your vision, for creating a party that was committed to peace, social justice, climate justice and consensus. Without that, I wouldn't have a political home, and I really want to thank you for your foresight and the way in which you and our other party elders have created not just a party but a movement that we can really commit to and value. I was going to talk about the fact that you are compassionate and fearless, but I actually don't think you are fearless, because one of the things that you taught me, particularly the other week, when you went into the House, is that being courageous is not having no fear; it's feeling the fear and doing it anyway. I think that has characterised the way in which you've approached so much of what you've done in your work both inside and outside the parliament, and I want to thank you for reminding me of that so that I don't let my fear stop me from being the advocate that we all need to be. I want to thank you for your commitment to human rights. I know that the Global Greens and the Asia-Pacific Greens Federation will really benefit from the fact that you will have more time to spend with them on the work that they do. I know from my own involvement in APGF that that is something that will be really valued right across the region. I'm sure you're going to have a huge impact on that as well. You talked about the Greens ecosystem and the members and supporters out there who support us. The first time that I really had much to do with you was on national council. I got to see, when you showed up and showed up and showed up, your commitment not just to consensus but to consensus between the members in our party and the members of party room and to making sure that that connection wasn't lost and that we worked together. I really respect and value that. I hope that, as I take my stint on national council coming from the other side, no longer being the party but being in party room, I can really model the things that you showed in that space. I feel very daunted by the fact that I am taking on so many of the things that you have really set the standard for. It's a real honour to become the party room chair. But it's more of an honour because I know that I'm following you. I really hope that I can live up to your example of commitment to consensus and make sure that we continue to work together as a team. And I hope you don't mind if I ring you from time to time to get some advice on that. I'm also so honoured and proud to be taking on the social services portfolio from you. I'm really conscious of the fact that I'm following on from a giant in Rachel Siewert and a giant in you. I am really committed to fighting tooth and nail to make sure that the vulnerable people in our community are heard and that we really make change for them because it really should have happened by now. The fight will continue, and I really look forward to carrying on your legacy in relation to that. I also want to thank you for all the work that you did to bring about marriage equality. Even though our family didn't know it at the time, I am the parent of a rainbow child, and I know that bringing in marriage equality was something that contributed to her feeling safe about exploring who she really is and being able to come out, and I want to thank you because you played such a big part in that. I also observed the impact that it had on kids too. As a teacher, I saw time and time again how difficult it was for young people who were queer. That change in making them feel valued made a real difference, not just to adults in our community but to young people as well. I know there are other people who want to speak and we are short on time, so I'll leave it there, but I just want to say thank you, Janet. I'm so grateful that I got to spend two years in the party room with you. I also want to thank you for the generosity that you showed for me as a new senator. You were one of the first people to check in and offer advice, support and encouragement. I really want to thank you for that; it means a lot. 19:12 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia What beautiful speeches—and so appropriate for all of your years here, Janet. I feel like years in the Senate are dog years. You've done 10, and that is 70 in my book. It is such a privilege to celebrate you with everyone else. I consider myself, like Penny, so lucky to have had nearly two years at your side, with your example before me and with all of your support. I have really loved working alongside you, and I have learnt so much from the way that you work. Just like Dorinda said, you gave me confidence from day one in the courage that you take into your incredible role here. You are an inspiring leader, senator, activist and human being. Three things have really stood out for me. I have been really inspired by your consistent and persistent standing up on human rights. You have just always been the one to name things immediately in the party room and to have the courage to follow through for people whose democratic rights are denied, whose lives, land and very survival is threatened. You are there for them every time: Palestine, Tibet, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, the Uighur people and many people in Australia—our human rights here as well. The fact that people have come tonight to celebrate and acknowledge that is a very important tribute to you. The Australia Tibet Council is lucky to have you in its future as well as its past. You always do the brave thing—most recently, calling out the human rights abuses in the Philippines when the president of that country was invited to address our parliament, ignoring the ongoing and long history of human rights abuses. You lead the way to call out the hypocrisy of that. I was sitting next to you and I could almost feel your heart beating. My heart was certainly pounding. I was watching everyone slowly turn towards us to look at you as you held up the sign that you had made. And, exactly as Penny said, you felt the fear—I could feel the fear next to you. It's not about feeling the fear; it's about doing the thing, remembering the trade unionists who have been shot in Manila, all of the human rights activists, the community members and the villagers who have lost their lives. That is what you take into that work. As you said when you did that protest, there are at least 800 political prisoners in the Philippines at the moment and you felt it was your obligation and responsibility. It's such a powerful thing you have given us. With your inspiring commitment to truth, whether it is truth in science or truth in calling out hypocrisy and suppression of human rights, you have more than truly stood up to your first speech pledge to work for self-determination for First Nations Australians and a treaty—very powerful work. Secondly, you have been an incredible campaigner for LGBTQI+ communities and individuals. I have been in awe of your powerful contributions arguing against—this is where I will cry—the regular hate directed in this place at trans communities and individuals. You have stood up time after time while that hate has come at us and you have insisted that people have the right to be who they are, that everyone is welcome here and that trans kids in particular are loved. So thank you for standing up truly to something you also promised in your first speech, which was to speak up always in the chamber for our rainbow community. You have more than adequately fulfilled that promise as well—energetically, lovingly and courageously. Finally, Janet, you have an extraordinary work and activism ethic, and these are very big boots to fill as we have acknowledged. I am really in awe of your work ethic, your commitment to making change, not only through activism but also through your parliamentary work. You have always walked on both those legs: doing the community work on the weekend, coming back here the following week to do all the parliamentary legislative work that you have shouldered. They are both demanding places, they will take all that you can give, and you have given both places everything that you had. You now get to rest for a bit but it won't be for long. You are unstoppable. I thank you for your sisterhood, for your inspiration, for your sweat, for your generosity. I wish you and Anne and family and friends all the very best and many wonderful times in the forest and on your beloved bike, avoiding planes—won't it be wonderful that you won't have to get up and get on a plane! You will go on to do all those things at a pace that you set yourself. You leave a giant legacy and I thank you for all of it. 19:17 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I have been listening to the contributions. Sorry I haven't been here for all of them. I want to thank you for your work as chair of the party room for so long, for all the things that you have been part of and witnessed over the years and for the way you have been able to guide us through some highs and lows. I genuinely don't know how you do that. With your patience, your kindness and your compassion, everybody feels the same way towards you, which is pretty rare and which I haven't seen. I remember when you got the news about Penny, in here, in the Senate. I was next to you. At the time, I thought you couldn't have been in a worse place to get that news, in the middle of proceedings. But in many ways, I think it was symbolic of the life you were living, the sacrifices you were making, that we all make as senators. I just wanted to say I think Penny would have been very proud of everything you have achieved here. I am sure she would have loved to have been here to see this, and you certainly have done Penny proud. Lastly, forests: with your connection to nature, there are lots of things to cover. Look, I am going to miss you greatly. Going back to the origins of the Greens and how we started, we had our 50th anniversary celebration down in Hobart in 2022 with a lot of the original members. For me, it is an almost spiritual thing to be part of the movement that you have been a giant in. You have carried that all the way through to the parliament. A lot of the original members, Di Hollister in Tasmania, Bob and Christine and others—they're quite happy out of parliament, by the way! They get to go back to what they love to do and where they originally started. For those who aren't aware, when the UTG—the United Tasmania Group—first started, the kinds of people who joined that party to go into parliament or take their issues into parliament had to draw names out of hats for candidates. Nobody wanted to put their hand up to be a candidate so that's why they were forming a political party, because they knew they actually had to do it. It wasn't seen as something that was—no-one was interested in power and the trappings or anything that goes with it. They were there for one simple reason, and that was to put the environment and their issues, the four pillars, which started with the UTG, front and centre and to change things from within the system. It's a bit like being a ring bearer in the Lord of the Rings. There will be things that will stay with you for the rest of your life from your time here. Nevertheless, it's not an easy thing. I applaud you for what you have done and I look forward to a few fireside chats, whether it's Sisters Beach or Bicheno or somewhere else down in Tasmania, and spending some time with you in the forests. Thank you for everything. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Greenstein, Mr Frank, OAM 74 19:21 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Today I am privileged to rise to celebrate an individual whose remarkable journey and contributions have significantly enriched our community and nation. Frank Greenstein, a name synonymous with dedication to community spirit to many of those in the Jewish and Liberal Party communities, has been honoured with a Medal of the Order of Australia, an OAM. This accolade serves not just as recognition of Frank's individual achievements but it's a vivid illustration of the transformative power of embracing new beginnings with courage and determination and the significant impact that one individual can have through service and dedication. Less than 25 years ago, Frank embarked on a journey from South Africa to Australia. He's a chemist by training, but when he came to Australia with his brother Alan he took on the reigns of Illy's Good Taste Bakery, just around the corner from my home in Malvern. The business was a significant supplier to cafes and restaurants right across Melbourne. Unwittingly, many Melburnians will have enjoyed the fruits of Frank's labour without even knowing it. But us locals in Malvern will most fondly remember the factory outlet at the Illy site on Station Street where you could pop in to pick up many of the sweet treats that were on offer. They certainly saved my obligations to school lunches many times. During COVID Frank and his family did what so many small-business owners do, they pivoted and began to bake savoury treats as well as sweet ones to keep the business going. And as a testament to the enormous number of friends that he has made in his time here, many Liberal Party members lined up to use their precious one hour a day outside during lockdowns to help promote Frank's new venture, using the most important tool in the political arsenal—letterboxing. Through his significant involvement with the Liberal Party, Frank has exuded a true enthusiasm for political engagement and public service. His roles have spanned from championing community engagement as chairman of the Community Engagement Committee and serving as vice-president of the Victorian Liberal division, where I first came to know him, and, of course, at a grassroots level where he has been active at his local electorate conferences and at the Caulfield branch. Through these roles, Frank has not only contributed to the political landscape but has also served as a pillar of support and a source of inspiration for many of us within the party, myself included. And, of course, wherever Frank went there was usually a tray of cakes in tow. Moreover, Frank's commitment to multicultural advocacy—through his contribution to the Victorian government's Small Business Multicultural Advisory Ministerial Council and the Advisory Committee for Multicultural Affairs, as well as his involvement and leadership in the Australian Intercultural Society, the Jewish Community Centre, the Jewish Christian Muslim Association of Australia, and most recently as an executive member of Jewish Community Council of Victoria, where he continues to serve after stints as both the interim president and the vice-president—underscores his dedication to promoting harmony and understanding across the diverse communities of Victoria. It would be fair to say that, given all this, as well as his previous efforts in South Africa, where he was politically active in the fight against apartheid, Frank has an instinctive understanding of our shared humanity and the strength inherent in our diverse society. In a time when our world faces myriad challenges, individuals like Frank remind us of the importance of community service and the enduring impact of dedicated leadership. His journey from a hopeful migrant to a celebrated member of the Australian community exemplifies the transformative power of service, the fulfilment that comes with volunteerism and the boundless potential of the human spirit to contribute to the greater good. To Frank and his family, I extend my most heartfelt congratulations on this well-deserved honour, and I am honoured to be able to call you my friend and to be inspired by your continuing work, work which stands as a testament to the values that we all hold dear as Australians: hard work, community engagement and the relentless pursuit of a more inclusive, more understanding and more united society. Frank, may your story continue to inspire and motivate all of us to strive for excellence in service to our community and to our nation. E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products 75 19:26 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I come from a family of heavy smokers—my dad smoked, my uncle, my sister, my brother, and me too. I remember the first smoke I ever had. I was 17 or 18 years old, I was at a party, and everyone else was smoking, so I tried one too. It was bloody awful. I hated it. But the more I drank the more I smoked. Everyone else was doing it, and I didn't want to be the odd one out. Smoking has always been a sliding habit for me. I'd smoke for a bit, then I'd feel bad about my health, so I'd stop. Then the peer group pressure would get to me, and I'd start again. When I met my partner, Tim, he smoked too. Our kids grew up watching us smoke, and, when they became adults, one of them started smoking too. Smoking is something that has been normalised for generations of my family. It has just always been happening in the background. As a kid, I was rolling smokes for my dad. When you rocked up to a family event, there was always someone in the backyard with a durry. It took a surgery for me to stop smoking for good. I was able to kick the habit. But it's not an easy thing to do. You can't understand addiction if you haven't been there. It eats away at you day after day. You try to cut back to stop. You know you need to for your health. But it's like it's in your veins: you need to smoke more than you need to sleep or breathe; air is an option. That's why so many heavy smokers are turning to vapes to try and get off the smokes. I've had family members do it. They didn't get a vape through a prescription. Not a lot of doctors are keen to give you something they think is harmful for your health. So this family member got the vape from overseas. It's technically illegal to do that in Australia. But this person was determined to improve their health, and they saw vapes as the best way to do that. And it worked. This person no longer uses any inhaling products. They've quit nicotine for good, and I'm so proud of them. I've seen a lot of people make the transition from cigarettes to vapes. They see it as an achievement, a sign that they're on the way to stopping their addiction once and for all. Meanwhile, Labor sees vapes as—I quote—'insidious devices'. I'm not saying using a vape is healthy. I'm not saying kids using a vape is okay. But what I am saying is that vapes are a legitimate way for people to try and stop smoking. For whatever reason, Labor doesn't want that. So I'm a bit confused about what they want to do. Banning vapes will only achieve one of two things. The first is that it will push people back onto smokes and push money back into big tobacco. We might be in a cost-of-living crisis, but, if you know a heavy smoker, you know that they will make sure they have money for smokes above anything else. It also continues to put pressure on our public health system. The other option is that the black market thrives. You can get a vape from China for $2 and sell it here in Australia for $30. That means there's no regulation on what's in the vape or the juices, and you don't have any idea of what you're buying. We're actively creating an environment for criminal activity to grow. That's why I back regulation over banning. We already have rules in place to make sure kids can't buy cigarettes. We make sure they're not packaged in ways that appeal to kids, and we tax them to high heaven. That money goes back into funding our health system. We could have done the same thing with vapes—rules around age requirements, rules around advertising and a healthy tax. That would mean more money to fund essential health care. It would mean that people would have access to vapes if and when they needed them. My general principle in life is that everyone is addicted to something. Some things are obvious, such as alcohol, cigarettes, drugs and gambling, but there are other things that are much more normalised—addictions to coffee, sugar or fast food, for example. None of these things are good for you, but as adults we have the freedom to make our own choices. That's why I don't agree with banning anything. Vaping won't help everyone stop smoking, but I've seen it work with people I love, and I know there are so many other stories out there just like theirs. It would be hypocritical of me to say that it's good enough for my loved ones but to not allow anyone else to have their choice. Domestic and Family Violence 75 19:30 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia It has been a horrific start to the year. In just 12 weeks in 2024, at least 15 women have been killed by partners in domestic and family violence, many in most tragic circumstances: run over by a sugar cane slasher, strangled, beaten, burned, stabbed—just too dreadful for words. Imagine living it day in, day out. Every day, every person matters in domestic and family violence. In addition to the dead women, at least 20 children will never again have the privilege of sharing their lives with their loved ones. The Northern Territory has some of the highest rates of domestic and family violence in the world. The family violence related assault rate in the Territory is three times that of the national average. In five years, family related offences have risen by nearly 40 per cent in Western Australia. Queensland police have experienced increased rates, receiving more than 171,000 family and domestic violence reports last year. In my home state of South Australia, family and domestic abuse related crime rose by 12 per cent. But what can't be forgotten is that this is only the tip of the iceberg. During the past four weeks, I've met with many family and domestic violence frontline workers and organisations. At round tables at the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria and in Adelaide and in meetings in Canberra and Melbourne, the story is one of exasperation and frustration. The vital services talk of too much talk, too many announcements, not enough action and not enough impact. All are singing from the same tragic song sheet. Services are stretched to their limits. For example, new data collected by the 13 women's legal services nationally has found that 1,018 attempts to receive assistance were turned away during a five-day period. That translates to the guesstimate of more than 52,000 being turned away each year. There's no excuse for domestic violence, but it is known that financial distress, tied to the cost of living, is a driver. Help phone lines and text message services report increased calls for help. Services are frustrated by short-term funding trial programs that show promise but are not continued. The sector is under siege. It simply can't keep up with demand. Meanwhile, it's a turtle pace from the Albanese government. It's in charge of the Treasury. It is the relevant minister that runs the department responsible. The minister and the department release the funds to the states and territories, and ultimately it is the minister that is accountable for outcomes. An announcement is not an outcome. It was quite some time ago that Minister Rishworth and Prime Minister Albanese announced the rollout of workers for critical frontline services. Way back, while on the election hustings, the Labor government promised 500 new frontline workers for the community services and family domestic violence sector. It featured in the October 2022 budget. Schedules were signed by mid-2023, yet it took around eight months for two workers—just two workers!—to be in place. Despite more than 50 women being killed in intimate partner violence in 2023 and escalating rates of domestic and family violence in every corner of our nation, only two of those 500 workers had been confirmed as being employed by the time of the February estimates hearings. It was only through Senate estimates processes that the truth of the woeful progress on delivery was exposed—the same Senate estimates where answers to hundreds of questions from the previous estimates were provided nine minutes before the next estimates. So much for transparency—another broken promise! In the following weeks, Minister Rishworth was quoted as saying that 17 full-time-equivalent workers had been hired—17 out of 500. That's not progress. It's a fail. Still, that is better than two out of 500, which came out in the Senate estimates in late February. There's no excuse for violence. There is no excuse for Prime Minister Albanese standing in the parliament on 27 November saying that he had taken immediate action. That was simply not true. In this place, every single one of us is on a unity ticket on the need to address domestic and family violence in all its forms. We all want the national plan and the two action plans to end violence against women and their children and the actions that support men, women and children to prevent, intervene, respond, recover and heal to make progress. The sector has said what needs to be done. The Albanese government has the roadmap and simply needs to get on with it—no excuses, no delay. Just get on with it. You have the roadmap. Albanese Government 76 19:35 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia The federal bureaucracy in Australia is a swollen behemoth. More people work for the government than ever before, meaning there are more people dependent on government than ever before. Meanwhile, starting a small business has never been more difficult and cumbersome, yet the federal bureaucracy and accompanying red tape is set to get even more swollen and even more restrictive. It's largely thanks to this government's incoherent climate agenda, which it's been implementing haphazardly. Federal government employees engaged in regulatory roles are set to increase across all government portfolios by an average of 11 per cent this year, or to more than 98,000 people from the current 90,620. A large chunk of this increase is due to staff increases in the Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio, which is set to increase by 51 per cent in the current financial year. By the way, that's three times more than any other portfolio is expected to increase over the same period. Specifically, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is expected to expand considerably by adding 1,481 employees. Furthermore, five federal agencies are expected to increase their staff numbers by more than 30 per cent this financial year, and four of those agencies are concerned with environmental regulation. Simply put, we can expect a lot more green tape over the next few years. The number of restrictive clauses within federal legislation and regulations has also increased by 88 per cent since 2005, and we've seen a considerable increase in bureaucratic power in this country in the relatively short amount of time since then. Ninety-seven per cent of these restrictive clauses have come from laws made directly by ministers and regulators, not parliament. It appears that we, as elected members of parliament, are barely even needed to pass laws anymore. In February, this Labor government released a report titled Cleaner, cheaper to run cars: the Australian new vehicle efficiency standard. However, the title is clearly misleading. The reason Labor claim they want to make cars cheaper to run is that they intend to make cars that consume larger amounts of fuel, such as utes and bigger family vehicles, too expensive to buy by taxing them for their supposed contribution to climate change. The same government report states: Transport is Australia's third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and will soon become the largest source if nothing is done … Overall, cars make up about 60% of transport emissions. Australia emits 1.16 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. By the way, China emits 29.18 per cent and the United States emits 14.02 per cent. This government is telling us that Australian transport is responsible for 60 per cent of 1.16 per cent of global carbon emissions, which is 0.69 per cent of global carbon emissions and hardly a global emergency. The aim, of course, is to redirect buyers to purchase electric vehicles in the long run. Recently, we learnt that this Labor government is about to introduce amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act under their so-called Nature Positive Plan. What this will look like is as yet unknown, but I'm going to gaze into my crystal ball and predict that behind the glossy brochures of koalas and rainforests lurks more job-destroying environmental handbrakes, more scope for green 'lawfare' and more green tape. When the bureaucracy is trimmed, economic growth follows. Businesses grow, employment increases, wages increase, money gets spent, property gets bought and so on. Sadly, the climate change and renewable energy agenda is impacting the cost of living and the economy, and it's swelling the bureaucracy. Furthermore, a government which employs so many people rather than facilitates employment in the private sector has made citizens highly economically dependent upon it. I prefer the principle articulated by my party, which strives for government that nurtures and encourages citizens through incentives rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor's corporate, state and bureaucratic red tape. I think it's almost time to update that statement to include the scourge of the new hard left, which is green tape. Banking and Financial Services 77 19:40 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise tonight to speak on an issue that is very important to the structure of our economy and very important, in particular, to the liberal philosophical view of the world. That is the importance of wealth creation. Sometimes in this place, particularly listening to those opposite, you would think that wealth creation is somehow a dirty phrase, when, in actual fact, it is the core of what we want in society. We want families to get ahead, we want individuals to get ahead and we want small businesses to be able to thrive, develop, employ people and grow. Sadly we have seen, over a number of years, increasing pressure on a particularly important component of that wealth generation capacity in our society, and that has caused a severe decline in the number of financial advisers within Australia. We've seen those numbers reduce from something approaching 26,000 to 30,000 to around half that today. That is on the back of an increasingly burdensome set of red tape, regulations and costs imposed by government. A financial adviser who works in the industry recently sent me a list of the costs that are imposed upon them before they even open the door—before they can even serve one client. Not all of these costs are government costs, and I acknowledge that, but significant parts of them are, and that is something that we, in this place, can actually do something about. I'm just going to run through some of them briefly. We've got the Australian Financial Services licence. For this particular adviser, you're talking about a minimum fee of $1,500 and then another $2,800 in a graduated fee. For a securities dealer, you add $1,000 to that. Then there's an additional fee for life insurance distribution. The new Compensation Scheme of Last Resort is likely to add something like $7,500 to that amount. Again, it's a direct charge from the financial regulator on small financial advisers. You've also got the AFCA levy. You've got public indemnity insurance and professional indemnity insurance, which can be up to $15,000 or even higher depending on the size of your practice. You're looking at wages for your support staff, rent, software and compliance costs, including very important things like providing sufficient cybersecurity to protect client records. All those things are absolutely essential to have before you serve one client. But what's this adding up to before a business can even open its doors? You're looking at between $100,000 and $200,000 for every financial adviser before they can even open their doors and give a small amount of advice to one client—one family that wants some financial advice, one small business that wants some financial advice or an individual who's trying to get ahead in our society. We believe in people growing their wealth and being able to access high-quality financial advice, whereas those opposite believe in 'set and forget' financial futures. They believe in pushing, in particular, the industry super funds so people just put their money away, then walk away and forget it. This is not the way we should be thinking about our financial future. We want Australians to engage with their financial futures, to actively engage with wealth generation and to be the best they can be as individuals, as families and as small businesses. One of the key components to doing that is a strong, vibrant and not overregulated financial advice sector. It's time we had a cold hard look at the sheer level of regulation and cost we are imposing as a society and as government on this sector and think about ways we can reduce those costs and reduce that burden so more Australians can actually access high-quality advice to improve their financial futures. Meals on Wheels 78 19:44 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I'm really happy to stand up tonight and talk about the fantastic work of Meals on Wheels. Parliament House played host to this great Australian organisation last week, and I took the opportunity to meet with the general manager of Meals on Wheels Moreton Bay Region, Wendy Smith, and their president, Kate Vromans. Meals on Wheels originally began in Britain during the Second World War and first started its work in Australia in 1953 in Melbourne. Today there are almost 600 outlets providing meals to more than 200,000 Australians. Meals on Wheels is one of the nation's largest volunteer organisations, with more than 45,000 active volunteers delivering meals and social connection with older Australians. I've been associated with Meals on Wheels for many years now. Before being elected to the Senate, I used to appear regularly as a political commentator on channel Seven's Sunrise program. I was paid a fee, but, when I was elected, I obviously could no longer accept payments and asked that channel Seven donate my former fee to Meals on Wheels. Ultimately, that raised about $35,000 for Meals on Wheels Pine Rivers, which was used to buy new kitchen equipment. Demand has increased not only from Meals on Wheels's traditional clients but also from vulnerable people not captured by government funding programs—for example, those under 65. This is putting a lot of additional pressure on the organisation at a time when their resources are already under strain. Meals on Wheels is already grateful to receive support and donations from the public. I'm working with them to set up some community fundraising ideas in Queensland. What they need, however, is funding certainty from government to ensure their sustainability. It's not only demand for their services which is growing; the costs of providing them are soaring too. These include food, insurance, fuel, training, equipment and more paid staff needed to ensure Meals on Wheels is compliant with relevant regulations and law. Fuel alone cost Moreton Bay Region approximately $62,000 last year. Government funding for Meals on Wheels comes mostly through the Commonwealth Home Support Program. For Meals on Wheels in Queensland, this works out at $8.25 per meal, and this is not enough to cover their costs anymore. In other states the funding per meal is sometimes higher but still not enough. Funding per meal for Meals on Wheels in Queensland needs to rise. Sixteen dollars would be ideal. Twelve dollars would probably do for now. I see this as an investment in preventive health care for older Australians. Meals on Wheels delivers nutritious meals, ensuring their clients are eating healthily. This can make a stark difference between ageing well and ageing poorly, and can have implications for health and aged care funded by the Australian taxpayer. With the cost of living having risen so sharply in recent times, this is critical for many older Australians on fixed incomes like the age pension. As Meals on Wheels tells me, a lot of older Australians are skipping or sharing meals to help make ends meet in this crisis. It's also taken a toll on older Australians' mental health. People looking to make ends meet often need to curtail spending on social outings, which increases their isolation, and the financial issues cause stress too. Meals on Wheels volunteers also offer the social connections that many older Australians need and serve as a regular check on their clients' day-to-day welfare. As I said before, Meals on Wheels is a great organisation that has served Australia very well for more than 70 years. Governments and communities should do all they can to ensure this Australian institution endures and continues to provide, long into the future, the service and support that so many people depend upon. So, if you can and you want to shout an aged Aussie a meal, contact Meals on Wheels. Put your name down. Maybe it's $10 a month, but that's one meal for that person. You never know; one day you might be in their shoes. Remember: these people were born in the days of wartime. Australian Society 79 19:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last week Senator Hanson spoke about record immigration and the human catastrophe it's causing everyday Australians. The Australian newspaper described her words as 'populist'. Among the commentariat, that label offers mythical protection, preventing them from having to actually discuss the issues we're raising. The commentariat may be interested in the definition of 'populist' being 'a politician who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups'. Damn right! The elites have been ignoring everyday Australians' concerns for 50 years. Populist is exactly who we are in One Nation—a party that cares about everyday Australians and the financial, housing, social and medical crisis now engulfing us. I'm proud that One Nation talk with the people and listen to what people have to say. I'm proud One Nation votes in parliament for the best interest of Australians, and I'm proud our supporters have the courage to stand up for what's right. This country would not be so far down the toilet if other parties in this place were as interested as One Nation is in the wants and needs of everyday Australians. Instead, they, like the commentariat, spit the word 'populist' from their mouths as if it were poison—as if it were an affront to their self-perceived superiority and arrogance. Such contempt for the word 'populist' comes from a deep-seated sense of superiority amongst inner-city elites and their champagne socialist ideology—socialists whose wealth insulates them and their ideologies from human outcomes. These are the people who eat the food and drink the wine grown on farms that the same champagne socialists demonise as enemies of their net zero revolution—farmers who they wish would get off their land to make way for solar panels, wind turbines and powerlines erected in the bush so city socialists don't have to look at them. All the while, they pat themselves on the back about how worthy they are, under the hubris of their spiritual guide and leader, the World Economic Forum, which steals wealth and sovereignty from everyday Australians on behalf of globalist, parasitic billionaires. To them, it doesn't matter that we Australians don't want to have our cars taxed until we can no longer afford to keep them; be locked into 15-minutes cities; never again be allowed to travel where we want, when we want and how we want; be living in homes rented from the billionaires because land taxes forced us to give up our own homes; be forced to rent furniture and whitegoods because green taxes made it too expensive to buy; and be forced to eat bugs and forced give up red meat in favour of cancer-like fake meat cultured in bioreactors. Who owns the companies making this slop? It is the same billionaires campaigning against red meat. And what is the greatest threat of all? It is digital currency that comes with a use-by date. Spend every cent of the money you earn or your money expires. There'll be no saving and no passing wealth on to our children. Australians will live in economic and physical slavery, except those wealthy and well connected under a different set of rules. When the commentariat dismiss us as populist, this is what they're covering up. These people are the billionaires' little minions—brainwashed ideologues and those simply greedy for money and power, operating in the bureaucracy, the media, corporations and parliaments around the world. Soviet Russia called these people the nomenklatura, and there's evidence they're in Australia, including here in this Senate. My words will be interpreted as some form of class warfare. Yes, they are. It was not One Nation, though, that started a war on working Australians. It will be One Nation that finishes it and wins it. Right now, fortunately, the public are waking to see the voice behind the curtain. The greed and ruthless self-interest are now obvious amongst the billionaires and the nomenklatura. This will not be an exercise in free will. You will be forced to comply. The elements of the control agenda are being shaped right now. The Digital ID Bill is on tomorrow's Senate schedule. This bill ensures every Australian has a government-backed digital identity that must be shown to access daily services: transport; shopping; banking, including ATMs; the internet; and much more. If you've heard the phrase 'papers, please' in connection with totalitarian regimes and wondered how people accepted that, wonder no more. The legislation can be used to prevent troublesome populists like One Nation from being heard. The digital ID is paired with legislation previously passed through this parliament that allows government and business to scan everyday Australians' faces in real time as we go about our business. The legislation that One Nation opposed yet the Senate passed allows police and any bureaucrat associated with penalties to determine your identity through a facial scan taken using your computer, your phone, your traffic cam, your street or shopping centre camera—even at supermarkets, which these days have more cameras than staff. The result is each Australian's data history, which corporations are allowed to access. They will know everything about each of us, and this information will be traded to corporations and between corporations to build an even more detailed picture. Who is to blame for these tools of tyranny? Labor, the Greens, teal Senator Pocock and the globalist Liberals and Nationals. One Nation tried to pass an amendment to prevent this type of facial scanning, yet the establishment parties voted our amendment down and out. They know this legislation's real purpose is to extinguish populism so that government can rule with total control. It was chilling last week to hear Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who graced business leaders with his thoughts on our future economy. His speech included the statement that he believes Australia must become an 'anti-fragile nation' and he invoked the philosophy of Nassim Nicholas Taleb—that strength and resilience emerge from confronting stress and disorder. The Treasurer said, 'It is hard not to see the value in this idea.' What may appear as a Treasurer trying to impress the big end of town with his pseudo-intellectual 'wafflenomics' on the nature of randomness is much, much more. The 'non-fragile' in that conversation means: nothing the public can do, nothing the next 'plandemic' can do, will shape the total control held in the hands of government and their big business mates, the corporations. Nothing can and nothing will interfere with the flow of profit from everyday Australians into the pockets of the world's predatory globalist billionaires. The Treasurer said that 'strength comes from confronting stress and disorder,' which is a tenet of Communist political theory. To build a new world order one must first create chaos from which the public will beg to be rescued—climate fraud and fear; COVID panic and hysteria. We now see chaos in the housing market, in the food and cost-of-living crisis, in the hospital and medical crisis, in education and across social issues like the capture of language and the erasure of women and gender. The Treasurer's words were a frightening self-own. The government are not interested in solutions. They want chaos, to force the public to accept a loss of sovereignty and freedom in return for income, housing and false security. Many Australians are waking. Those who aren't waking are running out of time. All that is needed to complete the suppression of opposition to this new tyranny is the misinformation and disinformation censorship bill that Minister Gallagher introduced. Free speech is the one thing preventing their plan from being complete, and the misinformation and disinformation censorship bill destroys free speech. One Nation, being a proudly populist party, will stick up for everyday Australians and oppose this control agenda. There is still hope. The internet is changing the ground rules, which is why they seek to control it. There is still time to sever the umbilical cord between the World Economic Forum and our parliament. Senator Hanson was right when she said last week: 'Stop voting for parties that are deliberately making your lives harder. Stop voting for the Liberal and Labor uniparty. In the next election you have a choice: One Nation or tyranny.' At the end of May, at the annual World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization, the WHO, votes on amendments to their International Health Regulations. The United States' proposal, that Australia supported, was for 80 pages of changes that would turn the WHO into the world health police—80 pages! It proposed egregious powers to force vaccinations, force medical procedures, force lockdowns and border closures and allow detention without due process. Yes, Australia really supported that. Nations are, rightly, now pushing back. The proposal has been watered down and the regulations will likely remain advisory. Here is the World Health Organization's problem: the World Health Organization's constitution and its own international health regulations now prohibit the vote. Schedule 2, article 55 of the International Health Regulations requires all matters being voted to be circulated four months before. We are two months out and health department FOI No. 4941 reveals that the changes are still being worked out. The requirement for advance notification to allow member nations full time to debate and decide has not been met and now cannot be met. Secondly, article 21 of the WHO's constitution says the regulations can cover only international measures. The WHO constitution does not provide for expanding the International Health Regulations to cover our own Australian domestic health response—for example, closing borders. May's vote is contrary to the WHO's constitution and proposes a scope outside the World Health Organization's constitution. I asked the health minister to reconsider voting on the WHO changes because it will be challenged in the International Court of Justice under the WHO constitution's article 75.This government wants to sign away more of our sovereignty and health decisions to the murdering rapists under WHO's former terrorist leader, Tedros. The rule of law must apply to everyone, including the World Health Organization. (Time expired) Australian Security Intelligence Organisation: 75th Anniversary 80 19:59 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise today to recognise the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, marked this month, and to honour the incredible men and women who have quietly worked to keep Australia safe without fanfare or public recognition. Today, ASIO is widely recognised for the indispensable role it has in protecting Australia from threats such as terrorism, espionage and foreign interference—so much so that it's hard to envisage a security apparatus without ASIO as one of its central pillars. But this was indeed the case 75 years ago. Following the end of the Second World War in 1945, the high-profile defection of a Soviet spy, Igor Gouzenko, revealed the workings of a Soviet spy ring in Canada. Media coverage of his evidence ignited public debate in Australia about our security against the threat of Communist subversion and led to criticism of the government's approach to national security. The reality was that ASIO's immediate precursor, the Commonwealth Investigation Service, was grossly underprepared for the threat of Soviet espionage. Historian Jacqueline Templeton described how the CIS was: … incompetent … because it had very little backing from the Government. The service was financially starved, with virtually no money to run agents or mount operations, no money for training personnel or for attracting skilled and properly qualified persons. In fact, the CIS did not even automatically vet its employees who were undertaking secret duties, somewhat ironic given ASIO's new responsibilities for top-secret vetting across the Commonwealth provided by legislative amendments last year. This meant that the CIS was fundamentally ill equipped to detect and disrupt Soviet espionage in Australia—a fact not helped by the general naivety in the Australian government at the time, driven by a perception that Australia was relatively untouched by these far-off threats. While the Australian government may have been relaxed about these threats, our allies were not. As David Horner writes in the first volume of the Official History of ASIO: Signals intelligence was at the heart of American and British concerns about security in Australia in 1948, and led directly to the establishment of ASIO in March, 1949. These concerns focused on two areas. First, information from decrypted Soviet cables [codenamed Venona] revealed unequivocally that Australian citizens in key government departments such as External Affairs were spying on behalf of the Soviet Union. Second, as a result of this spying Britain and the US cut off Australia from access to Allied Sigint, thus damaging Australia's standing as a reliable defence partner. It is hard to understate the significance of these revelations. Through the closely guarded secret of the Venona project, the Americans and British worked closely to intercept, decrypt and translate cables between Moscow and 27 cities around the world, including Canberra. The analysts read more than 200 cables revealing the names or cover names of about a dozen Australians, demonstrating that Australia had been thoroughly penetrated by Soviet intelligence. Our allies were understandably unimpressed and began to withhold sensitive intelligence from Australia. In August 1948, the US would decide to withhold all classified information from Australia. Facing pressure in the wake of the Venona revelations about the Australian government's maturity when it came to matters of national security, Prime Minister Chifley made the decision to form a new security service on 20 September 1948. The following year, Chifley informed parliament that 'a great increase in Australian security tasks and responsibilities has made it necessary to re-establish a separate security service' and that Mr Justice Reed had been appointed to 'establish and organise an Australian security service'. Prime Minister Chifley issued a directive on 16 March 1949 to formally appoint Reed as the first director-general of security, and thus ASIO was born. But this was only the first step in what would be a lengthy and concerted effort to win back the trust of the US and British security agencies. ASIO's first job was to catch the spies which had prompted its own creation. That set it on a path that would ultimately lead to ASIO convincing Vladimir Petrov to seek asylum in Australia, who famously and dramatically defected with his wife, Evdokia, in 1954. The image of Mrs Petrov being walked towards the tarmac at Sydney airport by armed Soviet minders to return to the USSR remains one of the most iconic photos in Australia's history. If the Venona revelations were the nadir of Australia's security agencies in the Cold War, the Petrov Affair was undoubtedly the peak. As Horner writes: The defection of the Petrovs was a considerable triumph. Just on five years after its formation, ASIO had managed to achieve the defection of the most senior MVD officer since before the Second World War … the Petrovs brought much valuable information and established ASIO's reputation among allied security services. Seventy years later, our closest allies are still comfortable sharing today with us their most sensitive secrets, as evidenced most recently by the AUKUS agreement. The Petrov Affair and the subsequent royal commission into espionage would for the first time shine a light on ASIO and its operations and see the organisation recognised for its important contribution to Australian security. The royal commission would also serve as a conduit for a series of important reforms which would further bolster ASIO's capabilities and strengthen its legislative foundations. At the behest of the second director-general of security, Charles Spry, Prime Minister Menzies introduced the ASIO bill into parliament on 24 October 1956, which, for the first time, publicly articulated the functions of ASIO and provided it with statutory authority and protection. Menzies would further shore up ASIO's statutory powers by creating offences to cover treason, treachery and sabotage, and enabling ASIO to legally intercept communications through things like wire taps. These reforms were then accompanied by an increase to ASIO's budget and staffing. Twenty years later, the first Hope royal commission would have far more significant ramifications for ASIO. Justice Hope had been commissioned by Prime Minister Whitlam to inquire into Australia's national security agencies, including their history, administration and functions. The Hope royal commission, while critical of ASIO in some respects, ultimately provided the impetus for the government to significantly increase its investment in ASIO's capabilities and to ensure that the ASIO Act provided clear legal cover for its mandated activities. This led to reforms legislated in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, which provided ASIO with a clearer operating framework that is foundational to the work they do today. The second Hope royal commission, in 1983, also led to enduring, if less dramatic, reforms of ASIO. Arguably the most significant change was the establishment of an independent office, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, created in part to scrutinise the work of ASIO and other intelligence agencies and ensure their work is lawful. While these reforms were largely driven by ASIO's efforts as they related to countersubversion, counterintelligence and counterespionage, ASIO had to adjust to new operational priorities as the threat of terrorism made its way onto Australian shores. While Australia had borne witness to politically motived violence before, when a bomb exploded in a garbage bin outside Sydney's Hilton hotel in February 1978, the threat of terrorism was brought home to Australians and placed counterterrorism squarely in ASIO's mandate. This mandate would become much more acute in the early 2000s. No Australian who was alive at the time will ever forget the visceral horror of the September 11 attacks or the 2002 Bali bombings, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians. The former director-general of security, Dennis Richardson, recalls: '9/11 led to counterterrorism moving from the periphery of government policy to the centre. Bali brought home the relevance of all of that to Australian security and the security of Australians.' This led to a new wave of challenges for ASIO, as the rise of the ISIL caliphate saw Australians travel overseas to fight for terrorist groups who were perpetrating truly abhorrent violence on innocent people around the world. Australia's current national tourism threat level is 'possible'. It was lowered from 'probable' in November last year. At that time, ASIO director-general Mike Burgess reported that there had been 11 terrorist attacks on Australian soil and 21 significant plots detected and disrupted since 2014. But the director-general has been quick to remind us that 'possible' does not mean 'negligible', as ASIO continues to investigate individuals who might seek to engage in terrorism in Australia. The terrorist attacks in Israel perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October serve as another reminder of the horrors of violent extremism. These events remind us that we cannot take our social cohesion for granted. I thank ASIO for the important role it plays in monitoring these developments and their implications for domestic security. Seventy-five years since its creation, combating foreign interference and espionage remains ASIO's principal focus. Just last month in his annual threat assessment director-general Mike Burgess said: While the terrorism threat level is POSSIBLE, if we had a threat level for espionage and foreign interference it would be at CERTAIN—the highest level on the scale. Many of us were shocked by the revelations in the same speech that an elected politician was prepared to betray our country. But it should not come as a surprise. The director-general has been saying for years now that foreign interference and espionage has supplanted terrorism as Australia's principal security threat. I welcome his disclosure, because it has shaken Australian out of its complacency, similar to what the Petrov affair did 75 years ago. The current strategic environment is unprecedented and the threat landscape continues to evolve. But Australians can take comfort in knowing that ASIO will rise to the challenge, remaining vigilant and shielding our country from those who seek to do us harm. On ASIO's 75th anniversary, it is fitting that we recognise the continued sacrifices that the hardworking men and women of ASIO continue to make in service of the safety of their fellow Australians. Thank you for your tireless and often unacknowledged efforts, and for the sacrifices you make in your personal lives due to the classified nature of your work. While public praise for your action might be rare, I'm pleased to offer mine. And, on behalf of my coalition colleagues, I extend our heartfelt gratitude. We thank you for your service on your 75th anniversary. International Women's Day: Congolese Women 82 20:09 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I take the opportunity to associate myself with Senator Paterson's remarks and mix in my thanks to Director-General Burgess and his team for the wonderful job they do. On 9 March 2024 I attended an International Women's Day event with Queensland's wonderful Congolese community. At the event, the women of the Queensland Congolese community read a letter they had jointly written. It was a cry from the heart. As a sign of deep respect for each and every one of those women, I now read this letter: As Congolese women, we are sincerely grateful for the amazing Queensland and Australian government, the First Nations People and all the beautiful hearts of Australians for welcoming us to this lovely Nation, also known to us as the "country of milk and honey." A peaceful country, full of justice and wonderful opportunities. We also are deeply grateful for the protection for us and our families from sorrows that might have accompanied us in our country of origin. The education opportunities given to us all and our children in Australia, your generosity is not only acknowledged but also appreciated. When it comes to the international day celebration with and for Australian women, Congolese women living in Australia are witnessing the progress, success, growth, transformation, and sense of harmony within the country's communities. Seeing another woman educated, attaining their maximum potential and obtaining the life she wants. To live in peace and with dignity, for a Congolese lady, it was like living in a dream, as she spent many years in refugee camps where such opportunities were not available. However, she thought, "Now that I'm here, I can run and catch up." Since today is International Women's Day, the women from the Democratic Republic of the Congo living in Australia are making a real effort to fit in and become inspired to be part of the "progress." But she wonders how this aim would be achieved. She thinks investing in her would be like pouring juice into a dirty glass; which makes no sense to her. Why? Because terrible news keep coming her way. Today her siblings were killed. Next day her parents were buried alive, following day her aunty was sexually abused in the sight of her children. The eyes of a Congolese woman have become water taps that run tears on a daily basis. The stories of her loved ones being cut in the neck with knives and machetes; the scenarios of her relatives being forced to have sexual relationship with siblings or other family members in sight of their children or even in the public. Due to all the crimes and atrocities happening in the Congo, the Congolese women have lost the appetite for the milk and honey that they found in Australia. Research shows that consistent traumas can affect the survivor's brain performance, decision making, creativity and so forth. War traumas have frozen the Congolese woman's mind, doors of creativity have been shut, her aspirations and dreams locked up in the cage of her brain. How is it possible to invest in my traumatised brain? A Congolese woman asks, but no one is answering. As she advances, to accelerate for progress, the Congolese woman feels alone because no one is there to help her deal with the horror experiences. Her rights are being abused and she keeps asking; Am I really part of the community of women in the world? Does the world really want to invest in me for my progress? But all she hears is silence, silence, silence. No one is answering, but what she can hear is the sound of gunshots and bomb explosions. The world is silent even though over 10 million people have lost their lives and about 40,000 rape cases have occurred in the Congo. This intensifies a sense of being isolated and alone within the global society on the political, social and economic fronts. The economic and mineral war in the Congo has displaced millions of people, leading to Congolese women not getting a sense of today's international women's day being meaningful to them. The land of the Congo is on the verge of being cut into pieces, and the women of the Congo has her hands on her head in distress, not able to find a safe place for her children. …   …   … Like any other women who stood up years ago in Australia and all around the world advocating for women's rights, us women from the Congo, we are deeply grateful for this opportunity to raise our voices here during this International Women's Day. We would like to call up on the Australian Government, Leaders men and women and the whole of the Australian community to stand with us fighting for peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo and also the rest of the World. Congolese women living in Australia are humbly requesting the Government of … Australia to say something regarding the crimes and atrocities executed by the rebel soldiers, and other international organisations involved in these events of war. We are also placing our request for humanitarian visas to be offered to our beloved found in the refugee camps and elsewhere. Without leaving behind our beloved that are displaced in the Congo; we call … for any material aids from the— Australian— government and non-government organisations that— could be sent to— our beloved Congolese women and children who left their villages for safety reasons. We believe that the goal of the global international women celebration is to build women up. To provide equality between men and women, and ensuring that even amongst the different women around the world, they're all to be treated equally. I hope that we would all get along and that no one should be alone. I hope that exploitation comes to an end and that we can live by exhortation and not in constant exhaustion. To Say something is a choice, to keep quiet is also a choice. To live by example is a choice as well as not to live by it, is a choice. To Make Peace in the World is a choice for World members, and deciding not to is also a choice. … LET'S LIVE BY EXAMPLE AND SUPPORT EVERY WOMAN ON THE PLANET. LET'S LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND. LET'S MAKE OUR WORLD A BETTER PLACE. FORTUNES CAN STILL BE MADE EVEN WITHOUT GUNS, VIOLENCE AND ABUSE! That was a letter which was read by Queensland women of Congolese heritage, part of our wonderful Queensland Congolese diaspora, in Queensland on 9 March 2024. I want to pay tribute to each and every one of those women for what they do for their families, for what they do for the community. I understand that many of them, nearly all of them, are still supporting family members back in Africa, whether in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or in refugee camps—wonderful, wonderful women. This is the cry from their collective heart. I made a pledge that I would read it here in the Senate, and I think every senator here today needs to listen to those words and to reflect on whether or not Australia can do more to assist our Congolese community and to be a beacon for hope and for peace and try and bring an end to that awful, dreadful conflict in the Congo. Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill Select Committee, Discrimination 84 20:18 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I rise to speak on this adjournment, and I would like to refer back to the valedictory speech that was given earlier today. In part, while I respect the work of Senator Rice and her very kind comments about the Senate select committee I chaired, I do want to correct the record on one thing. She made the comment that it was a consensus report, which was the point that a lot of people made at the time, but I think it is worth noting—I believe she would appreciate my, in the spirit of being accurate and balanced, highlighting the fact—that, yes, there was a consensus in this committee, which was set up by a reference that was voted for by the ALP, the Greens and the Xenophon party at the time, to look into the exposure draft that had been released by Senator Brandis. The consensus the committee reached, having received evidence from a broad range of people, was that the issue of same-sex marriage is not actually a human rights issue, because the evidence showed that Australia is under no obligation to change the definition of marriage because equality before the law and freedom from discrimination had been met via recognition of same-sex relationships in other provisions. That was something that was actually acknowledged by consensus by the members of the committee. It was also acknowledged that there was no barrier to Australia making this change should the parliament have the numbers and the will to decide—which, history shows, it ended up doing. But there is a third part that I want to put on the record. This is the reason why in that report there were no recommendations—just an observation of the facts that were presented. The third area of consensus was that the changes would impact on article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which concerns the freedom of religion, and there would be substantial matters with respect to human rights that would need to be addressed with respect to freedom of religion and belief. In the rush to embrace the first part—which said there is no barrier, and there was a consensus on that—people overlooked and, I would say, disregarded the consensus on the third part which said that we actually need to take action on protecting, and finding the appropriate balance for, freedom of religion and belief. It was that rush at the time and not actually taking all the elements of that report that were agreed by consensus that has led us to the position we find ourselves in this week, where we see headlines in the media of issues and contention around faith based schools. One of the concerns we have at the moment is that there is a move led by the report that has come from the Australian Law Reform Commission to abolish section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which would remove the ability of the leaders of faith based schools to preference employing people who actually support their faith and their values and who commit to modelling and living out the values that that school produces. What the schools have said and what human rights lawyers have indicated is that this would fundamentally undermine the ability of faith based schools to be different from a school that was run by any other authority, including state schools. It's important to realise that faith based schools generally exist for one of two reasons: either the charitable mission of the church looking to support the broader community or because parents wish to have their children educated within a community of shared faith and values. So, in the Australian context, the Josephite order established by Mary MacKillop in the 1860s is a great example of the first reason. She established schools and orphanages and schools as well as ministries to the aged, the poor, prisoners and the incurably ill, and international human rights law recognises the right of faith based groups to establish and maintain charitable organisations with a distinctive religious nature. In particular in 1981, the Declaration of the General Assembly article 6(b) is the most recent reference to that right. But, in the second group, many low-fee faith based schools in contemporary Australia actually have their origins in the actions of parents who have taken the trouble to establish an alternative to the public system because they want to work with others who share their faith and their world view to create an environment for the education of their children. Rather than seek to impose their views on other people, they have actually created an alternative. This is also specifically supported in international human rights law, in article 13.3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which states that parents have the liberty to choose schools for their children other than those established by public authorities to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions; in article 13.4, which provides a guarantee that individuals and bodies may establish private educational institutions; and, obviously, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in article 18.4. These human rights laws come from the experience of World War II where we saw massive loss worldwide. Nearly three per cent of the world's population perished. World leaders came together afterwards to look at the root causes. For those who are interested, I have written a reasonable article on the Menzies Research Centre that goes into the background of where those laws come from. But they also, importantly, recognise that sometimes those freedoms, which include freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom from discrimination and freedom of religion, are all equal and can't be dealt with separately as if one is more important than the other. They all have to be balanced. There was a meeting, now known as the Siracusa principles, that gives guidance on how those things are balanced. Importantly, there are some principles, and the first of those is a necessity: any limiting of a right in order to protect another right must be strictly necessary to achieve that as well as proportional. That leads to one of the concerns that we see currently with the Australian Law Reform Commission report into faith based schools in light of the government's direction that they would put forward a model whereby the government said that schools can't discriminate but they have to be able to maintain their religious ethos. That's almost an impossible balance to obtain unless you take the approach that Justice Derrington, the immediate past president of the ALRC, took: that if faith based schools are operating in accordance with their faith and their ethos, they do not discriminate. This actually meets the first two limbs of the current government terms of reference as well as obviously meeting the third, enabling the faith based community to maintain their religious standing and approach, which is why so many parents send their children to those schools. The problem I have with the ALRC report is that they believe it is necessary to completely remove section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984, which, as I said before, prevents schools from being able to preference employing people who share their faith and to have a consistent community that model that faith and teach that faith to the children. They make a large part in their report about proportionality but ignore the necessity. Parliamentary research shows that it is not necessary, because, within half an hour's drive, within 25 kilometres, around Australia, there is a state based or an independent school for every religious school, with the exception of 16 very small schools in the top of the Northern Territory and Western Australia. This means that it's not necessary to limit the rights of hundreds of thousands of peoples of faith for the very few numbers of people who have indicated that they have felt discrimination at a faith based school, which is only 0.2 per cent, for example, of the complaints in Queensland at the Human Rights Commission, so there is another option there. The government has taken, I think, a dreadful approach in gagging faith leaders in terms of consultations around this. The parliament has not seen the bill that the government is planning to put forward and, as we lead into Easter, people in Australia, particularly people of faith, should be concerned that there is no transparency. There is no openness about what is being proposed, and there is even discussion today about deals being done with the Greens, and we should be requiring that it follows the normal process of the Senate, where that legislation is tabled so the Senate and the Australian public can scrutinise what is being proposed by the Albanese government. Senate adjourned at 20:28